Decisions, decisions on the wall, who's the maker of them all?

While talking to my mom over my fall break I realized a curiosity that I have for large decision making.  When I say large decision making, I don't just mean tough decisions, I mean really big decisions that maybe we don't often stop to think about who has the authority to make these decisions.

 I'm talking about the person for example who thought to changed daylight savings time back in 2007.  When this decision was made it was the first time daylight savings time (DST) was changed in 20 years. 

The new changes were enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which extended the length of DST for the purposes of reducing energy consumption.  The new rules increased the duration of DST by about a month.  This meant that DST would now be in effect for 238 days (about 65% of the year.) With these new rules Congress still had the right to revert to the prior law if this change proved unpopular or if the energy savings weren't significant.  

So the thought process behind being more energy efficient by changing DST (from what I gather) is that we will spend less time in the dark and therefore have to use less energy on lights.  There was also some talk about children not having to wait in the dark for the school bus.

Okay so... the person who decided this just went ahead and decided to change time? Time.  I don't understand what qualifies someone to change time?  If we want kids waiting for the bus in the daylight why don't we just change what time school starts, instead of changing time altogether?  It seems like such a big deal.. and by doing this, are we time traveling? And without the use of a flux capacitor? And also, who would decide if the new law proved "unpopular"? Same guy... or..? How many people have to dislike it for it to be "unpopular"? What constitutes the subjective nature of the word "unpopular"? Does this blog count?

It's not just DST that I think is a big decision that we don't really have the authority to make.  Another example that came to mind was in the world of advertising.  

"Old Spice - the official deodorant and body wash of the NFL"-- fine.  "Pepsi - the official soft drink of MLB" -- sure.  These two things make sense, both parties are perfectly capable of making this partnership legitimate.  

What I'm concerned with is when I saw a commercial for "Goodyear, the official tires of winter."  Really? The official tires of winter? Did you ASK winter? Did Winter tell you that your tires are its official tires? Winter can't consent to that, so how can Goodyear's tires be the official tires of winter? Who got to decide this, and how? 

I may never know the answers to the questions about who makes all these decisions, but it is interesting to think about control and who has it.  Whether it's a mundane commercial you may not have stopped to think twice about, or an over arching decision like daylight savings that seems so large that we wouldn't even know where to point the finger on a decision of that size power and control can be very thought provoking.  

Well, that's all I had brewing for now! Remember to follow me on Twitter @mkbeer08.