Dubai: a capitalist’s dream. Pity, it’s time to wake up.

There is no denying Dubai's appeal to the people of its less prosperous neighbouring countries. It beckoned aspiring capitalists to its shores with its enchanting skyline and promises of fast and easy money.

Easy money it wasn’t. But it was fast. Daily flights from Dubai into India flooded airports with serpentine lines of tired looking faces seemingly afloat in a sea of trolleys loaded with flat screen TVs, washing machines, and transparent bags filled with clothes.

Dubai’s skyline was literally built on the aspirations of these men. A large majority of them were construction workers. And these trophies would take years for their construction worker counterparts to earn in either India or Pakistan.

So, when there is much hue and cry over hopes being shattered following the financial crisis in Dubai, I am a bit sceptical. It is not the end of the Middle East as we know it. I am no economist but, as an observer of financial trends, it would seem as America had their Lehman Brothers, the Middle East has its Dubai World.

Bearing in mind the plight of the global economy this past year, it is fascinating to see the shock and horror that ripples across the globe when the next (rather predictable) domino falls. Why wouldn't it fall? I would be surprised if it didn't.

Especially, when it was clearly displaying all the symptoms of the malaise that had brought down the previous ailing economies - mainly - spending money they don’t have.

That said, I don’t believe as Simon Jenkins says in The Guardian that Dubai is a city built on sand. Well, geographically, yes. Metaphorically - no.

It is a city built on huge capitalistic dreams. And some, like the dreaming migrant construction worker, have realised theirs’.

Is love blind, or are we?

A quick search on Amazon reveals approximately 1100 guides, essential guides, coaches and the like – for love. And yet most of us, men and women, alike are dismally unsuccessful at it.

I don’t claim to have any spectacular insights on the subject. But, I found something Rihanna said, in her recent interview on the Diane Sawyer show, very interesting. The chart topping singer of ‘Disturbia’ was in the news during the earlier half of the year for being physical abused by her boyfriend with whom she subsequently reconciled with. However, she has now broken up with him.

I’m not qualified to judge her actions or motives. I'd just like to examine a statement she made on the popular talk show. She said, amongst many other gloomy things about love, that love is blind. It is not uncommon statement. It has been often used to justify many a questionable union.

However, is it really love that is blind?

An article in the economist on attributes questionable unions to the release of hormones. It also mentioned that in a research study in 2000, Andreas Bartels and Semir Zeki of University College, London, located the areas of the brain activated by romantic love. They took students who said they were madly in love, put them into a brain scanner, and looked at their patterns of brain activity. To briefly conclude – the study found that the brains of people deeply in love do not look like those of people experiencing strong emotions, but instead like those of people snorting coke. Love, in other words, uses the neural mechanisms that are activated during the process of addiction.

So, even if there is a chemical reaction to blame for bad decisions and blindness, what happens when the effects of the chemical wears out? As Cocaine loses it’s high, so does oxytocin (the love hormone). It would seem, that the physiological explanation to long bad relationships is moot here. I am sure there may be various deep seated psychological explanations behind an individual’s choice to stay in a relationship which appears obviously harmful to other people.

But, the blindness of love is not one of them. Love is not blind to people’s failings - at some point for whatever reasons - we just choose to turn a blind eye.

Open and Shut

‘I hate tennis’ says André Agassi in his new autobiography ‘Open’. This statement boggles the mind for two reasons: Why did he spend most of his adult life making certain he was at the top of a game he didn’t even like? And if not for the sport, what kept him going?

Unfortunately, he’s just one of many sportsmen who hate his sport. According to the ‘Guardian’ Chris Boardman, the former Olympic pursuit champion, and Tour De France star David Millar admitted to not really liking cycling either.

To an extent it is understandable. Being the best requires all consuming training and tenacity, and it does take over your life. But then, what pushes them on and gets them out of bed? Of this dilemma Agassi says in his book: "I'm a young man, relatively speaking. Thirty Six. But I wake as if 96. After two decades of sprinting, stopping on a dime, jumping high and landing hard, my body no longer feels like my body. Consequently, my mind no longer feels like my mind."

I’m sure there are a lot of non-Wimbledon- winning people who feel like this in the morning. However, most of them get out of bed because they have bills to pay. It’s hard to imagine Agassi’s unpaid bills piling up on the kitchen table pushing him to the French Open. It could be the burning desire to be the best, the limelight, or the fear of failure. I guess the only way to find out is to read the book.

But then, the thought creeps to mind – is knowing what got him out of bed in the morning really worth buying and then reading a book about a drug abusing somewhat masochistic star who appears to have decided it’s time for his shot of the limelight?.

I would rather read an inspiring tale of a young man who fought against all odds to do something he loved. Stephen Hawking is right when he said about himself: ‘It is a waste of time to be angry about my disability. One has to get on with life and I haven’t done badly. People won’t have time for you if you are always angry or complaining’.

I wonder if you’ll agree…