NOSERISM: Defining Israel’s Control Over American Policy

Introduction: The Need for Conceptual Precision

In political science, few relationships are as complex and often misunderstood as that between the United States and Israel. Many analysts describe this dynamic as “The Israel Lobby,” “Foreign-Policy Capture,” or “Client-State Dynamics.” Each term captures part of the reality, yet none fully defines the phenomenon in which a smaller nation appears to exercise disproportionate influence over a larger, more powerful one.

To address this gap, this paper proposes a new term - Noserism - to describe this particular form of influence: when a powerful actor, while outwardly sovereign, is subtly directed by another through ideological, financial, or political leverage. The term is inspired by the Malay proverb “seperti kerbau dicucuk hidung” - “like a buffalo led by the nose.” Meaning, someone is being led, controlled, or manipulated like a buffalo that is guided by a ring in its nose. It evokes the image of strength without direction, power without autonomy.

This is not a moral judgment, nor a political accusation. It is an attempt at precise definition - to give policymakers, scholars, and journalists a clear term for describing such asymmetrical yet non-coercive relationships.

Why Getting the Definition Right Matters

In serious research, defining a concept is not an act of wordiness but of precision. Every key term - whether power, culture, or justice,  anchors the logic of an entire argument. How a concept is defined determines what counts as evidence, which theories apply, and what conclusions are valid.

Concepts evolve across disciplines; terms like colonialism, hegemony, or soft power carry different meanings in political science, sociology, and international relations. A rigorous definition acknowledges earlier thinkers, competing schools, and the intellectual traditions that shaped the term. This situating process demonstrates both academic honesty and intellectual continuity.

Furthermore, language shapes perception. Defining freedom as “absence of interference” leads to a liberal worldview, whereas defining it as “capacity for self-realization” yields a communitarian one. Similarly, calling U.S.–Israel relations a lobby, a capture, or a client-state dependency changes how we interpret the motives and mechanisms behind policy decisions. Thus, to define Noserism is to make thought transparent - to bring analytical clarity where ambiguity breeds confusion.

Finally, good definitions can themselves create new knowledge. When Marx redefined capital, or when Edward Said reframed Orientalism, they transformed how the world understood economics and culture. In the same spirit, a precise definition of Noserism offers scholars and practitioners a new lens through which to interpret power, influence, and leverage in modern geopolitics.

The Sacred Act of Naming

The effort to define Noserism is not merely academic - it continues a profound spiritual and intellectual tradition rooted in revelation itself. For example, both the Qur’an and the Bible emphasize that knowledge begins with naming.

“And He taught Adam the names - all of them.” (Qur’an 2:31)

In this moment, the Qur’an portrays the act of naming as the birth of human reason: the ability to categorize, symbolize, and understand. Unlike other creatures who act by instinct, humans think by naming. To name is to perceive; to define is to create order from chaos. Definition, therefore, is sacred - it mirrors divine wisdom in understanding the world.

The Bible echoes this truth:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

Here, “the Word” (Logos) is both language and reason - the bridge between divine intention and human comprehension. Thus, when scholars labor to define culture, justice, or Noserism, they are participating in an ancient continuity thus bringing clarity and moral order through the power of words.

In the Qur’an, the story of Adam continues with his appointment as khalifah (steward) of creation (Qur’an 2:30–39). Humanity’s first duty was epistemological: to understand and name the world rightly. Every generation, therefore, must renew this act - to name realities truthfully so that moral and intellectual balance is maintained. Misnaming leads to distortion; accurate naming restores justice.

Toward a Definition of Noserism

Noserism (noun) refers to a political condition in which a powerful nation or leader is guided or influenced by a subtler external actor through non-coercive means — such as ideological alignment and leverage, financial dependence, or strategic guilt.

It is distinct from neo-colonialism, which describes domination by economic dependence, and from hegemony, which denotes overt leadership. Instead, Noserism captures the paradox of controlled strength, where the dominant party appears to lead but in practice is led.

The term can apply beyond U.S.–Israel relations. It can describe any scenario in which influence flows upward - where the nominally stronger actor behaves according to the strategic design of a smaller or subtler power.

Comparative Framework

To situate Noserism within the broader evolution of political control, it is useful to compare it with related frameworks that describe different forms of domination and influence throughout history.

Colonialism represents direct occupation and administrative control, where one state rules another through physical presence, military force, and political governance. It is the most overt form of domination.

Settler Colonialism goes a step further by seeking permanent occupation and demographic replacement. Rather than merely exploiting resources or governing a territory, the colonizer settles the land, displaces or assimilates the indigenous population, and establishes new political and cultural structures. Historical examples include the European settlement of the Americas, Australia, and Palestine.

Neo-colonialism replaces occupation with economic dependence. The colonized nation is politically independent but economically bound, its policies shaped by trade, debt, and foreign investment - as Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad observed, “we may be politically free, but we are still economically colonised.”

Hegemony refers to leadership and dominance, often by a superpower, sustained through consent rather than coercion. The hegemon leads by projecting values, alliances, and institutional influence — as seen in post–World War II American global leadership.

Noserism, by contrast, captures a subtler inversion: an ideological or psychological manipulation of a stronger actor by a smaller one. It describes situations where the more powerful state, though possessing vast military and economic strength, is directed by another through emotional, ideological, or narrative leverage. It is influence without overt coercion. Control achieved through the soft reins of belief, guilt, identity alignment or manipulation - the politics of being “led by the nose.”

Naming as Moral Clarity

Defining Noserism is not a political accusation but an act of conceptual honesty. In the field of international relations, precise language is the foundation of analytical integrity. By naming a phenomenon accurately, scholars make it visible and therefore discussable.

Colonialism once exposed the brutality of empire; neo-colonialism revealed hidden economic subjugation. In the same way, Noserism opens space for understanding how influence can flow in unexpected directions - from the weaker to the stronger - through emotional, ideological, or psychological channels.

The goal of naming, as both revelation and reason teach us, is clarity. The Qur’an reminds us that God “taught Adam the names of all things,” making the act of definition the beginning of knowledge. The Bible echoes, “In the beginning was the Word,” affirming that truth itself begins with articulation. To define clearly is to act in that same lineage - restoring balance through truthful naming.

By offering Noserism as a precise term, we aim not to judge but to understand; not to condemn, but to clarify. For in the realm of ideas, moral order begins with linguistic order - and when we name rightly, we see rightly.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

Penang

 

 

THE ILLUSTRIOUS MALAY WORLD SEAFARING HISTORY

The Malays, particularly the maritime Malay communities of the Peninsula’s eastern coasts and the islands of the Malay Archipelago already possess a distinguished and illustrious history of seafaring and shipbuilding.

There is no need to embellish this legacy with pseudo-history or unproven claims.

Doing so diminishes, rather than enhances, its true greatness.

When we assert what cannot be substantiated, we invite ridicule instead of respect and in the process, rob ourselves of the genuine pride our history deserves.

Peace, anas

I LITE U? What We Can Learn from a Flicker of Controversy

 

The debate over the “I Lite U” campaign is healthy. Whether to promote Malaysia in English or Malay is a valid discussion – but it should be guided by marketing logic, not sentiment. The goal must be to promote our country while staying true to our soul.

While it is logical to use a language that the target market understands best, the real creative challenge and wisdom lie in marrying communication with who we are – our product, service, and offerings.

However, my first concern is this: while we debate its language, “I Lite U” is not good English or good communication in the first place.

As someone trained in marketing, with experience in copywriting and running campaigns, I would like to first comment on this poor choice of English words and campaign communication.

The word lite is a slang form of light, often used in marketing to mean low-calorie (as in “Coke Lite”) – not illumination. Using “I Lite U” as a phrase to mean “I light you up” or “I illuminate you” is grammatically incorrect. To English speakers, “I Lite U” sounds childish or like text-speak (“I luv u”), which undermines the seriousness of a government tourism campaign.

Are we targeting kids or adults who have the money to spend?

Foreigners may not understand what the phrase actually means – who is “I”? What is being lit? It could even be misread as a personal romantic message (“I light you” = “I love you”) rather than a tourism slogan. For an international audience, such ambiguity weakens brand clarity. A slogan must communicate instantly, without explanation.

Good tourism or city branding slogans are clear (“Incredible India,” “Truly Asia,” “Amazing Thailand”), authentic (reflect local identity), and emotionally resonant yet linguistically correct. “I Lite U” fails on clarity and correctness. A foreign visitor might even assume it’s a typo.

From a language and branding standpoint, “I Lite U” sounds more like a playful typo than a professional message. English-speaking foreigners are likely to think it’s broken English (since “lite” isn’t a verb, and “U” is text-speak), be unsure what it means – is it “I light you,” “I like you,” or “I’m lit up?” – and perceive Malaysia’s public communication as careless or gimmicky. This undercuts the goal of projecting sophistication and confidence.

Ask again: who are we targeting? Those who fall for gimmicks, or those who think well and carefully before they spend their travel dollars?

Perhaps, a better campaign slogan would be something like “Many Lights, One City” with a subheading in Malay – “Ku Petik Bintang-bintang Untukmu.” In this way, English attracts while the Malay words create curiosity. We get visitors to participate by googling to find out what the Malay phrase means. Once we get customers to participate, we are halfway there.

“Ku Petik Bintang-bintang” also echoes Bukit Bintang – one of the main attractions we are inviting them to in this campaign.

Furthermore, “Many Lights, One City” is simple, universal, and elegant. It is easy for foreigners to understand and remember. It carries Malaysia’s unity and diversity. Each “light” can symbolize different people, cultures, or communities – all shining together as one city. It resonates with tourism and local pride, perfectly matching Malaysia’s multicultural narrative: “Many races, one nation” → “Many lights, one city.”

It could also be extended and scaled for the future and for other cities and areas in Malaysia, avoiding the silo mentality where each ministry runs its own campaign without a unifying national theme: “Many Lights, One Nation.” “Many Lights, One Malaysia.”

Light symbolizes people, hope, warmth, creativity, and faith. It positions Kuala Lumpur as a city glowing with diversity – authentic, inclusive, and alive.

What Must We Learn from This Episode?

My dear Malaysians, we often waste precious time debating what is secondary instead of focusing on what truly matters. And the manner of debate too is often unhealthy. Our goal should always be what is best for the nation.

While it is good to have passion about our language or our strategy to bring in business, we must ensure that we do not allow our emotions to get the better of us. It is precisely because every decision is, at its core, an emotional act – for we can never have complete information – that we must discipline our minds and exercise reasoning with utmost care before reaching a conclusion.

The problem with many of us – including those who see ourselves as “smart people” – is our inability to define reality without emotional attachment. Instead of evaluating both the good and the bad in a person, idea, or policy, we allow personal bias – whether positive or negative – to shape our perception of truth. In doing so, even intelligent individuals can act foolishly, as our emotions cloud judgment and rob our minds of clarity.

The I Lite U friction is yet another example of misplaced attention – a debate driven by noise rather than thought. Instead of discussing whether the campaign is done right in the first place, we allow ourselves to debate something else entirely.

And in doing so, we miss the real issue – how to communicate our nation’s story to the world with wisdom, integrity, and pride.

Peace.
Anas Zubedy
Kuala Lumpur

 

ALCOHOL, MALAYSIA, THE OVERTON WINDOW AND THE QUR’AN’S WAY

 

Let me start by first stating clearly that personally I do not consume alcohol. I do not take any business from the alcohol industry. We also do not accept business from tobacco and gambling-based companies. However:

Every now and then, Malaysia finds itself debating alcohol. Should we ban it? Restrict it? Or accept it as part of our multicultural reality?

The recent debates once again made headlines — from the controversy over Malaysia Airlines’ in-flight alcohol policy, to a tourism gala dinner where alcohol was served, to the Prime Minister’s public reminder that no official government event should include alcohol. Schools, too, were reminded to keep clear of sponsorships or promotions from alcohol and gambling brands.

These discussions reveal something deeper than just the question of drinking. They touch upon who we are as a nation — a Muslim-majority country that also takes pride in its diversity, hospitality, and openness to the world.

But perhaps, before rushing to ban or defend, we should pause and reflect on how real and lasting change happens — not just in law, but in hearts. Not just based on politics, but on Qur’anic guidance.

THE OVERTON WINDOW: HOW SOCIETIES EVOLVE

In modern political science, there is a concept called the Overton Window.
It explains how public opinion - and eventually policy - changes over time.

According to Joseph P. Overton, ideas move through a series of stages:
from unthinkable, to radical, to acceptable, to sensible, to popular, and finally, to policy.

Politicians, he argued, rarely lead this change — they follow it. The true drivers of transformation are the people — when their hearts, minds, and conversations evolve.

Overton’s theory shows that lasting reform begins not with a law or decree, but with a shift in public consciousness. That is, with understanding.

THE QUR’AN’S WAY: 1,400 YEARS AHEAD OF OVERTON

Interestingly, what Overton described in recent decades was already demonstrated 1,400 years ago — in how the Qur’an transformed society.

Take the case of alcohol.

In 7th-century Arabia, wine was everywhere. It was part of daily life, trade, and celebration. A total ban, imposed overnight, would have created rebellion and hypocrisy. But the Qur’an, in its divine wisdom, guided people through a gradual moral awakening - one that allowed the community to outgrow the habit naturally.

The process unfolded in three stages:

1. Stage One – Awareness of Harm
   “They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say, ‘In them is great sin and some benefit for people, but the sin is greater than the benefit.’”(Qur’an 2:219)
   Here, the Qur’an did not ban. It invited reflection. It planted a seed of moral doubt. The people began to think.
2. Stage Two – Restraint and Consciousness
   “O you who believe! Do not approach prayer while intoxicated until you know what you are saying.”(Qur’an 4:43).The message tightened. The conflict between worship and intoxication became clear. A believer now had to choose between awareness in prayer or the cloud of alcohol.
3. Stage Three – Moral Readiness and Prohibition
   “Intoxicants, gambling, idols, and divining arrows are abominations of Satan’s handiwork. Avoid them so that you may prosper.”
   (Qur’an 5:90). By now, the community was ready. When this verse was revealed, as recorded in Al-Bukhari, the Muslims poured away their wine instantly. Poets said that “wine flowed through the streets of Madinah.”

The Qur’an’s gradual revelation shows that true change begins with consciousness, not coercion. And moral transformation must mature naturally within the human heart.

The Prophet ﷺ did not force his people to stop drinking. He educated them - until they no longer needed to be forced. It was not law that made them change; it was love for God, understanding, and readiness.

THE PROPHET’S ﷺ METHOD: CHANGE FROM THE INSIDE OUT

This was the Prophet’s timeless method. He did not impose goodness — he inspired it.
He knew that the only change that lasts is the one that grows from within.

So when the final command came, there was no resistance. The people themselves were prepared. They had already internalized the value. The law simply confirmed what the heart had accepted.

It was not about prohibition; it was about transformation.

A GENTLE WORD TO TODAY’S MUSLIM ADVOCATES

Many Muslims today campaign passionately to ban alcohol in Malaysia.
Their intentions may be noble — they want to protect faith, morality, and society.

But I humbly suggest: before we seek to ban, let us first seek to learn the Qur’anic way.Real transformation requires more than legislation. It requires education, persuasion, and compassion. A policy can restrict an act, but only wisdom can purify a heart.

Let us ask ourselves honestly: Are we fighting to protect Islam — or are we using Islam to protect our political interests?

Because the Qur’an warns us against this kind of hypocrisy:

“Have you seen the one who takes his desires as his god?” (Qur’an 45:23)
“Do not sell God’s covenant for a small price.” (Qur’an 16:95)
“O you who believe! Why do you say what you do not do? It is most hateful to God that you say what you do not do.” (Qur’an 61:2–3)

If we are truly fighting for Islam, let us be just as passionate about the causes the Qur’an emphasises again and again - social care, justice, education, ending poverty, caring for parents, protecting orphans, uplifting the weak, and fighting corruption.

Do we raise our voices for these with the same energy that we raise them for banning alcohol?

We must take careful note that during the first five years of revelation, the Qur’an’s emphasis was entirely on awakening the mind, nurturing faith, and building moral consciousness - not on laws or prohibitions.

It began with the command to Read (Iqra’), calling humanity to seek knowledge, reflect, and recognize the Creator. In these early Meccan years, Allah focused on spiritual awakening, personal responsibility, and social compassion - urging believers to care for orphans, feed the poor, and uphold truthfulness.

The early verses of Surah Al-‘Alaq, Al-Muddaththir, Al-Mā‘ūn, and Al-Layl all stressed purification of the self, compassion for others, and sincerity in worship. The message was clear: before society can be governed by divine law, the human heart must first be educated, humbled, and awakened.

THE REAL QUESTION: ARE WE READY?

The Muslims of Madinah were ready to pour away their drinks because their hearts had already changed.

So let me ask us today:

ARE WE READY TO POUR AWAY OUR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON THE STREETS OF KUALA LUMPUR?

Not by decree, but by conviction. Not because of politics, but because of faith.

For society’s norms shift when understanding deepens - not when laws are imposed prematurely.If we want a truly moral society, we must begin not with bans, but with hearts that understand.

Let us be the generation that chooses education over enforcement, sincerity over symbolism, and faith over politics.

I would like to end this article with this very important verse. Muslims - especially our leaders, scholars, and policymakers - must remember that this verse is not meant for Muslims alone, but for all humankind. If we truly and wholeheartedly believe that the Qur’an was sent as guidance for all, then we must factor this divine principle into every decision and policy we are entrusted with. Real change, as the Qur’an teaches, does not begin with laws, politics, or enforcement - it begins from within the human heart.

“Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.” (Qur’an 13:11)

Anas Zubedy
Penang

 

THE FULL VERSION : WHY WORKING FROM HOME DOESN’T WORK FOR MANY

 

There is growing evidence that formal workplaces in Malaysia are feeling the pressure from employees and broader generational shifts to offer more flexible work-arrangements, including some days working from home (WFH).

Recent studies show that over 70% of Malaysian employees prefer hybrid or flexible work arrangements, viewing them as an essential part of modern employment. This trend is especially strong among Gen Z workers, whose commitment to an employer is closely tied to the level of flexibility offered - if they don’t get it, they’re more likely to leave.

While some thrive working from home - especially those with disciplined habits, clear roles, and supportive setups — many, if not most, do not.

Why?

1. Lack of Structure and Focus

The home can be full of distractions. Without the rhythm of regular office schedules, commutes, and colleagues, our focus weakens. Personal time seeps into work hours, and productivity quietly slips away. Focus is key to success.

2. Weaker Learning, Teamwork, and Shared Purpose

Work is not only about tasks; it is also about people. We learn through observation, casual conversations, and teamwork. Younger or newer staff lose these learning moments when working remotely. The mentorship and coaching that naturally happen in shared spaces are reduced. Over time, we learn less effectively and lose our sense of teamwork and shared purpose.

3. Loss of Culture and Connection

An office is not just a physical space; it is where company culture comes alive. Without face-to-face interaction, trust and belonging fade. People become isolated, less connected, and less loyal to their teams and mission.

4. Integrity and Ethics – Working Less Than Promised

Perhaps the most serious issue is ethical. Many who WFH end up giving less than they promised — attending to personal matters during office hours, working shorter days, or simply coasting. When someone is paid for eight hours but delivers only five, that income is no longer ethical.

For those who believe in God, morality, or karma, this is no small matter. It means we earn what is not rightfully ours — haram income for some, and bad karma for others. Work, whether done at home or in an office, is an act of trust. Breaking that trust breaks something deep within us.

That said, it is understandable that some may need to work from home - single parents, those caring for an elderly family member, or individuals facing specific personal circumstances. WFH also makes sense for certain types of jobs or functions where physical presence adds little value.

The key is to be honest with ourselves and our employers about what truly works - to reflect and ask, “Am I really cut out to work from home?”

Peace.

Anas Zubedy.

Kuala Lumpur.

FAM’S MOGWAI TURNS INTO GREMLINS

 

I felt sorry for the Vice President of FAM, S. Sivasundaram, during the recent press conference. He was grilled mercilessly on the issue of the seven heritage players. It was painful to watch. He had to do the impossible—defend something that was beyond his power, to cover for decisions made long before his turn at the microphone. In that moment, I did not see a villain. I saw a man trapped—caught in a web spun by others, forced to explain the unexplainable.

The whole scene reminded me of the 1984 movie Gremlins. It begins with a father who buys a small, cute creature called a Mogwai. The shopkeeper gives three simple rules: do not expose it to bright light, do not let it come into contact with water, and never feed it after midnight. But when these rules are broken, the Mogwai multiplies uncontrollably and turns into mischievous, destructive monsters called Gremlins. What was once adorable becomes chaos.

FAM’s story feels very similar. At first, the plan to naturalise and include heritage players seemed promising—an innocent Mogwai, a step toward improving the national team. But somewhere along the way, the second and third rules were broken. The “water” of convenience was spilled, allowing falsehoods to multiply. Then came the “feeding after midnight”—attempts to cover, deny, or deflect responsibility. The Mogwai turned into Gremlins.

A lie, after all, cannot stand alone. It breeds more lies to protect itself. Each new deceit exists to fill the gaps of the last one. What began as a single falsehood becomes a web of confusion, half-truths, and misplaced blame. I am reminded of the Buddhist saying: “A liar is like a thief of trust.” In the Mahabharata, Yudhishthira’s one small lie unleashed a war that destroyed families and kingdoms. In the Bible, we are told, “Do not lie to one another.” And the Qur’an warns, “So woe to those who lie” (51:10). Across faiths, the message is the same: deceit multiplies until it devours the liar and all around him.

During that press conference, I sensed that those answering were not entirely free. They were trying to defend something that had already gone too far. Each vague response and evasive answer was another Mogwai spawning in the dark—another attempt to control what had already become uncontrollable.

It is time to stop feeding the Gremlins. FAM must face the first lie honestly. Admit the mistake, take full responsibility, and start again from truth. Malaysians can forgive mistakes, but not cover-ups. The longer we wait, the more these little monsters will multiply—gnawing away at trust, reputation, and the integrity of Malaysian football.

A single lie is lonely. It will breed many. But when we finally face it, the breeding stops. It is not too late for FAM to turn on the light, confront the monsters, and begin rebuilding with honesty and humility. Only then can our football- our shared pride, become something truly worth cheering for again.

I hope this episode in his life will not spoil his family and his Deepavali celebration. And may the spirit of Deepavali help not just S. Sivasundaram, but FAM too, to rise above the need to continue a lie—and achieve the spiritual victory of Dharma over Adharma, light over darkness, good over evil, and knowledge over ignorance.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

Kuala Lumpur

 

Have a Meaningful Deepavali 2025 - WHY WORKING FROM HOME DOESN’T WORK FOR MANY

 

Have a Meaningful Deepavali

WHY WORKING FROM HOME DOESN’T WORK FOR MANY

While some thrive working from home (WFH) — especially those with disciplined habits, clear roles, and supportive setups — many, if not most, do not. Why?

1. Lack of Structure and Focus

The home can be full of distractions. Without the rhythm of regular office schedules, commutes, and colleagues, our focus weakens. Personal time seeps into work hours, and productivity quietly slips away. Focus is key to success.

2. Weaker Learning, Teamwork, and Shared Purpose

Work is not only about tasks; it is also about people. We learn through observation, casual conversations, and teamwork. Younger or newer staff lose these learning moments when working remotely. The mentorship and coaching that naturally happen in shared spaces are reduced. Over time, we learn less effectively and lose our sense of teamwork and shared purpose.

3. Loss of Culture and Connection

An office is not just a physical space; it is where company culture comes alive. Without face-to-face interaction, trust and belonging fade. People become isolated, less connected, and less loyal to their teams and mission.

4. Integrity and Ethics – Working Less Than Promised

Perhaps the most serious issue is ethical. Many who WFH end up giving less than they promised — attending to personal matters during office hours, working shorter days, or simply coasting. When someone is paid for eight hours but delivers only five, that income is no longer ethical.

For those who believe in God, morality, or karma, this is no small matter. It means we earn what is not rightfully ours — haram income for some, and bad karma for others. Work, whether done at home or in an office, is an act of trust. Breaking that trust breaks something deep within us.

It is best to be honest with ourselves and ask, “Am I really cut out to work from home?”

At zubedy, we help organizations build cultures of integrity, discipline, and accountability. Talk to us if you want your people to take ownership.

Let us add value,

Have A Meaningful Deepavali.

Peace, anas

Note:

TAN SRI DEVAKI AYATHURAI KRISHNAN (1923–2024) was a pioneer who broke barriers quietly but firmly, becoming Malaysia’s first woman elected to public office in 1955. Always serious and committed to her responsibilities, she never watched the clock. For her, work was not about hours; it was about purpose.