Remember that time you invited all of your girlfriends over to watch the collected works of Woody Allen and forgot to mention it to your partner who was looking forward to watching the game? Or the time you happened to exploit the fact that he used your computer and forgot to sign out of his email? I’m not saying it’s always YOUR fault, but there are certain moments in a relationship when it might be helpful to apologize. So just how important are apologies and what’s the best way to go about making them?
Dr. Guy Grenier, a psychologist and marital therapist, says apologies serve a lot of important purposes. First, they’re an indication that someone isn’t right all of the time and that they acknowledge that. Second, apologizing can make clear that you’re concerned about your partner’s welfare, which is a basic, but fundamental, point that needs to be made over and over in a relationship. Third, apologies can help to de-escalate conflict.
Is fear of breaking up (FOBU) keeping you in the wrong relationship?
A key part of apologizing is a full acknowledgement of what you did wrong, and why your partner is upset. “We act the way we act, but it lands on our partners in different ways and it’s important to understand how our partner receives our actions,” says Catherine Morris, a psychotherapist. “When we do something, there’s an immediate reaction from our partner related to their sense of feeling loved and okay. We can have an almost visceral alarm that goes off – even if our partner has no idea that this is happening.”
Though most of us are eager to ease the tension (read: let’s stop this fussing and fighting and get back to eating this leftover pie), that doesn’t mean that an apology is always warranted. “It’s not appropriate just keep saying ‘I’m sorry’ for everything,” says Morris.
“It’s appropriate when you become aware that your partner is truly wounded. If you’re not sincerely sorry, it should invite some dialogue.” Morris adds that you should, at least, be interested in understanding why your partner is wounded. Too many arguments are focused on each partner breathlessly trying to get his or her own point across without actually listening to the other person.
It’s also worth noting that not every conflict requires an apology — especially if it’s not sincere. People who live together can expect their needs to clash on occasion, and that doesn’t mean you should apologize for having your own set of needs. “Apologizing can be really bad communication,” says Dr. Grenier. “There are people who apologize for everything, and it can be related to assertiveness and self-esteem issues. It can send subtle messages that my needs are not as important as yours.”
And what about when it comes to accepting an apology? While most of us are eager to move beyond conflict, that’s hard to do if you feel that the apology isn’t sincere and that your partner is simply trying to placate you. Dr. Grenier suggests that it can be helpful if we abandon our obsession with forgiveness.
“Forgiveness says you did something wrong but that’s okay,” he says. “And it’s not. It requires the forgiver to lie to both themselves and the other person. The reality is that people who love us will hurt us — but we don’t have to say that it’s okay. Reconciliation is possible, and acceptance of imperfection and that our needs are at odds with other people. We shouldn’t apologize for our own needs, but we should apologize for being thoughtless or careless.”
In the end, as Morris points out, being sorry for something isn’t just about words; it’s also reflected in your behaviour. “When my daughter was young, she would do something and then very quickly say sorry,” says Morris. “I would say that I’m more interested in seeing your behaviour change. It’s easy to say sorry, it’s harder to spend the time to understand why you’ve hurt someone and to work on not hurting them again.”
Saying sorry isn’t always easy, so here are some tips:
1. The best way to apologize is “quick and intense,” according to Dr. Grenier. The longer you wait to apologize, the longer you prolong a conflict.
2. Don’t say you’re sorry if you don’t mean it. “Apologies have to be real,” says Morris. They have to be from the heart and the person being apologized to has to feel like the person apologizing gets it.”
3. It can help to show genuine interest in why your partner is hurt; try asking some questions about why they feel the way they feel and what would make them feel better.
4. Take full responsibility for hurting your partner’s feelings, and explain what you might do differently to avoid doing the same thing in the future.
5. Sometimes, sorry isn’t enough. Work on truly understanding why your partner feels hurt and trying to change any hurtful patterns.
TWIN BOYS, TWIN LIVES
Unlike most identical twins, Jim Springer and Jim Lewis share a first name instead of a last. The two were separated at birth and adopted by separate families who, by coincidence, named their respective sons James.
So began their parallel lives. Springer and Lewis shared not only a genetic code and a first name, but they shared more or less the same life, independent of one another until their reunion, 39 years after the initial separation.
Growing up in different homes, both were aware, barely, that they had a twin brother out there somewhere, but neither gave it much thought. Springer’s mother told him his twin had died, while Lewis simply wasn’t interested in meeting his brother.
That changed in 1977, when Lewis, then 37, decided to track down his brother. He found Springer’s name through a local courthouse, and the two of them spoke over the phone, both of them nervous wrecks. They agreed to meet, and their bond was restored on February 9,1979. Now, both consider their reunion the most important day of their lives.
Once they got to talking, they discovered the remarkable similarities they shared, similarities that went beyond simple genetics and almost into Twilight Zone territory.
Both were adopted by families living in Ohio and grew up within 45 miles of each other. Both had childhood dogs they named “Toy.” Both were married twice — first to women named Linda, and then to women named Betty. Both had children — including sons named James Allen. Both lived in the only house on their block. Both Both were chain-smokers, enjoyed beer, had woodworking shops in their garages, drove Chevrolets, and served as sheriffs in separate Ohio counties.
The Jim twins, as they’re now called, were perfect candidates for behavioral research. The two participated in a study of reunited twins conducted by Dr. Thomas Bouchard of University of Minnesota. In one test measuring personality, the twins’ scores were so close that it may well have been the same person taking the test two times. Their brain-wave tests were similarly near-identical, as were their medical histories.
The parallels between the two would go on to shape theories on the influence of environment and hereditary factors on personality — nature vs. nurture, to use another term. Some use their case as evidence of telepathic connection between twins.
To an outsider, it seems as if the Jim twins may as well have been the same person. However, Jim Lewis noted that there are, after all differences.
“The differences between Jim and me may be the differences between living in the city and country.”
For behavior geneticists like Eaves, who do the nitty-gritty work in the nature-nurture debate, twins are the perfect people on whom to test hypotheses about what is molded by life’s pressures and what is inborn. But such scientists wage the battle from a distance, using statistics to describe the behavior of populations — of aggregates, in other words — rather than individuals.
These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness. In the most widely publicized study of this type, launched in 1979, University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard and his colleagues have chronicled the fates of about 60 pairs of identical twins raised separately. Some of the pairs had scarcely met before Bouchard contacted them, and yet the behaviors and personalities and social attitudes they displayed in lengthy batteries of tests were often remarkably alike.
The first pair Bouchard met, James Arthur Springer and James Edward Lewis, had just been reunited at age 39 after being given up by their mother and separately adopted as 1-month-olds. Springer and Lewis, both Ohioans, found they had each married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been math, their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day.
Equally astounding was another set of twins, Oskar Stohr and Jack Yufe. At first, they appeared to be a textbook case of the primacy of culture in forming individuals — just the opposite of the Lewis-Springer pair. Separated from his twin six months after their birth in Trinidad, Oskar was brought up Catholic in Germany and joined the Hitler Youth. Jack stayed behind in the Caribbean, was raised a Jew and lived for a time in Israel. Yet despite the stark contrast of their lives, when the twins were reunited in their fifth decade they had similar speech and thought patterns, similar gaits, a taste for spicy foods and common peculiarities such as flushing the toilet before they used it.
Bouchard’s collection of twins-raised-apart is unique in American behavior genetics. In most twin studies, including Eaves’s research, scientists are comparing the similarities between identical twins and fraternal twins; in other words, they compare comparisons. To test the assumption that genes play a role in IQ, for example, scientists ask whether the IQs of identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than those of fraternal twins (who share an average of 50 percent). To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins, may be due to genes.
It was this figure that provided the grist for the controversial 1994 book The Bell Curve, whose conservative authors argued that little could be done to help the poor because they suffered from low IQs that were fixed, for the most part, by their genes. The book has been disputed by many critics, including those who deny that IQ is a worthy measure of intelligence. Even if it is, though, the genetic component of IQ that The Bell Curve trumpets is not an overwhelming factor: Even if half of IQ variation is due to genes, that leaves room for plenty of average kids to be born to brilliant parents, and vice versa. And when children of smart parents are smart, it is nearly impossible to know whether this is due to the “smart” genes they inherited, or the “smart” environment their parents provided.
When it comes to social policy, genetics provides no worthy pretext for neglecting the disadvantaged, as geneticist and child development expert Sandra Scarr has pointed out. Scarr, a former University of Virginia professor, is considered a hard-liner for nature; she believes that if a child’s basic needs are met, genes become the dominant control on how far the child will go in life. But she also has called for massive intervention to help underprivileged children. Infants and toddlers lacking the basics in food, shelter and affection, she says, are likely to be stunted in ways that outweigh genetic considerations.
When journalists first began interviewing Bouchard’s twins-raised-apart, they focused on the spectacularly similar pairs, like the Springer-Lewis twins. But those twins turned out to be outliers in the Minnesota study. Most of the other twins weren’t nearly as alike. Furthermore, since no one is claiming there is a gene for flushing the toilet before you use it, or a gene for marrying women named Betty, such coincidences are statistical anomalies, as Bouchard is quick to acknowledge. The quirky cases strengthen our sense of the power of nature, but they don’t provide enough data to make a scientific case. “There probably are genetic influences on almost all facets of human behavior,” Bouchard says today, “but the emphasis on the idiosyncratic characteristics is misleading. On average, identical twins raised separately are about 50 percent similar — and that defeats the widespread belief that identical twins are carbon copies. Obviously, they are not. Each is a unique individual in his or her own right.”
Geneticist humor: A little joke is posted on the bulletin board of the clinical genetics department at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. It’s a diagram of the X chromosome, with the names and descriptions of imaginary genes scribbled at intervals along it: “visa” — the gene for shopping addiction; “klutz” — the inability-to-manipulate-mechanical-objects gene; “blab” — the gene for prolonged telephone conversation; “eek” — the fear-of-bugs gene. There’s even a gene for emotional instability — “shrill” — and one for learned helplessness: “honey . . .”
Variations on this joke can be found at labs around the country, pushpinned next to the job notices and 401(k) plan announcements and postcards from colleagues at the beach in Aruba. Like the “You want it when?!” posters on the walls of auto repair shops, the joke map parodies popular perceptions of the profession but contains a kernel of truth. Scientists have made some pretty remarkable claims recently about the impact of particular molecules on behavior. In journals such as Science and Nature Genetics, they publish news of genes for neuroticism and thrill-seeking and risk-taking, genes for alcoholism and aggression and anxiety. In 1993, a National Cancer Institute researcher reported the location — on chromosome X, as it happens — of a gene that seemed to cause homosexuality.
It must be said, however, that the meanings of such discoveries shed their precision as they travel from the scientific literature to the popular culture. Genes don’t really make homosexuals or violent kids or depressed adults, and no reputable scientist would claim that they do. Genes make proteins that contribute to chemical pathways that play a role in complex neurological and existential events. But that’s a long story, so spare us the details. Something inside us — a “fatalism” gene, perhaps? — makes us want to believe that the genetic blueprint holds the secrets of who we are.
Something of this fatalism imbues the folklore of twins. In the books and magazine articles and Web sites about their lives, twins tell uncanny stories of wordless understandings, of moments of grief or joy communicated at a distance without benefit of a phone, by some kind of genetic magnetism. On one Web site, a woman named Gilia Angell recalls wandering into the St. Patrick’s Cathedral gift shop in New York and buying a postcard of an airbrushed Jesus, which she mailed to her twin sister in Olympia, Wash. A few days later, she says, a letter postmarked the same day arrived from Olympia. Enclosed was a refrigerator magnet “with the same filmy airbrushed picture of Jesus!” Then there are those twin pranks, adding to our general sense of wonderment over their doubleness — duped boyfriends and confused motor vehicles officials, cheating on SAT tests — and the good twin/bad twin dichotomies, exemplified by Jeen Han, a California 23-year-old who was recently convicted of trying to kill her twin.
Yet for all of that synergy stuff, natural-born clones don’t have to be told they are separate individuals — they know it. “You could take 50 cells from my leg and make 50 other people who look and sound like me, but they won’t be me,” says Richard Bausch, a novelist, short-story writer and George Mason University writing instructor. “To any twin, the idea that human clones would be the same is absurd. When you’re a twin you know that. People are much too complicated to be replicated, no matter how many genes they discover.”
On the face of it, Bausch’s convictions seem undercut by his biology. His identical twin, Robert, is also a fiction writer, and also a writing instructor, at Northern Virginia Community College in Woodbridge. But these are writers, of course, whose job is to be finely aware of nuances. Robert is the more intellectual one; Richard is more religious. Their take on cloning is similar, but Robert’s analogies are Jesuitic. “If everything that we call the will is just genetics and chemistry,” he asks, “then who in the hell are we talking to when we try to remember something that’s on the tip of our tongue?”
At 51, the Bausch twins see less of each other than they used to. They each have their own work and their own children to worry about. They have been profiled too often to really enjoy being a novelty act anymore. Neither feels that being a clone is what defines him. But Richard will say this: “How people react to life is determined by their nature, but I don’t think nature is biological. I still believe in good and evil, and that there is such a thing as sin.
” ‘Genes’ is just the word we use to describe God.”
Joseph Matthäus Aigner (18 January 1818, Vienna – 19 February 1886, Vienna) was an Austrian portrait painter, who studied under Friedrich von Amerling and Carl Rahl. He painted portraits of Franz Joseph I of Austria and his wife Elizabeth, Franz Grillparzer, Friedrich Halm, Nikolaus Lenau, and Maximilian I of Mexico.
In 1847 he married actress Fanny Matras (1828–1878).
As commander of the Academic Legion during the 1848 revolutions in Vienna, Aigner was court-martialed for high treason and condemned to death. However, Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Grätz pardoned him.
According to Ripley’s Believe It or Not!, a Capuchin monk, whose name Aigner never knew, saved his life three times, when he attempted to hang himself at ages 18 and 22 and when he was sentenced to death. Aigner successfully committed suicide with a pistol in Vienna in 1886, and the same monk presided over his funeral.
Type Residential condominiums
Location 301 Mission Street
San Francisco, California
Coordinates 37.7904°N 122.3961°W
Construction started 2005
Opening April 23, 2009
Cost US$350 million
Owner Mission Street Development, LLC
Antenna spire 645 ft (197 m)
Roof 605 ft (184 m)
Top floor 592 ft (180 m)
Floor count 58
Floor area 1,150,000 sq ft (107,000 m2)
Design and construction
Architect Handel Architects
Developer Millennium Partners
Structural engineer DeSimone Consulting Engineers
Main contractor Webcor Builders
Number of units 419
Millennium Tower is a 58-story, 196.6 m (645 ft) condominium skyscraper completed in 2009 in the South of Market district in downtown San Francisco. A mixed-use, primarily residential structure, it is the tallest building in San Francisco to include residences.
The blue-gray glass, late-modernist tower is bounded by Mission, Fremont, and Beale Streets, and the north end of the Transbay Transit Center site. The building was opened to residents on April 23, 2009. Its highest level, 58 floors above the ground, is listed as the 60th, because floors 13 and 44 are missing for superstitious reasons.
In 2016, the building was found to be both sinking and tilting. In November 2016, the city of San Francisco filed suit against the tower’s developer Mission Street Developers LLC, claiming that the developers withheld information on the sinking problems from potential apartment buyers. Tenants received official disclosure of the structure issues in May 2016, only a few months before the news went public.
Bad habits and destructive behaviors can negatively impact our marriage and ultimately will destroy our marriage.
10 Habits That Will Destroy Your Marriage
Our pride can take a toll on our marriage. When we are constantly focusing on our own needs and wants than we are slowly sucking the joy out of our marriage. This way of thinking makes you think that you should be served and loved more than your spouse. If your spouse doesn’t fulfill your expectations or love you the way that you want them to then you immediately have a wounded spirit and start to push your spouse away. This is a very dangerous path to take.
Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom. Proverbs 13:10
2. Critical Spirit
When we are constantly criticizing our spouse we are tearing down the walls of our marriage. No one likes to be around someone who is picking them apart. When our spouse feels like they can never measure up to our standard we creating an environment that is hostile and will ultimately be destroyed. There is a trick to saving your marriage from this habit!
Ruth Bell Graham said it best, a happy marriage is the union of two good forgivers. How true is that? What other earthly relationship do we have that requires us to exercise forgiveness the most? None. Marriage let’s you see another person’s faults and quirks up close and personal for the rest of your life. There are going to be countless times that require you to forgive your spouse. If we cannot forgive easily we are choosing a behavior that will destroy our marriage.
“The first to apologize is the bravest. The first to forgive is the strongest. And the first to forget is the happiest.”
Check out the top 10 habits that will destroy your marriage.
Coming right off of forgiveness is bitterness. When we refuse to forgive those that hurt us it begins to take root in our hearts. If you are in a struggling marriage it can be too easy to let your hurts become bitterness. But the funny thing about bitterness is that it isn’t hurting your spouse it’s hurting yourself. You are poisoning yourself.
Our spouses are going to hurt us, let us down and disappoint us. There is no way around that. But we don’t need to let bitterness destroy our marriage.
Both wives and husbands need to be respected in a happy marriage. But the one thing that men want in marriage is to be respected. They desire that above everything. Yes, that means above sex and affection. If it is the one thing that will make marriage better for them than when wives disrespect their husband we are destroying our marriage. The longer we disrespect them the more long term damage we are doing to our marriage. Ladies, we need to be respecting our husbands. It is so important to a happy marriage. Be good to your man!
6. Lack of Affection
Married people are supposed to be showing affection to each other. That’s a no-brainer, right?
Affection is among the top things that a wife wants from a marriage. We want to feel loved, cherished and desired. Simple acts like hand holding, kissing, arms around the shoulder, and hugs make a woman feel loved. When men stop doing the these they are slowly destroying their marriage.
Affection can be a wide variety of things but it definitely includes sex. Being intimate with our spouse must be a priority in our marriage. When you neglect this area you are allowing temptations into your marriage that shouldn’t be there. Without intimacy you are losing your closeness with your spouse. The Bible is very clear on not neglecting this! Sheila, at To Love Honor and Vacuum has so many resources, I recommend checking her out if you need help in this area!
It is so important to be filling our spouses love tank. You never want to get to a point where your spouse starts looking else where for the affection. Let’s be intentional at making our marriage thrive!
This emotion is often the cause of much harm, both physical and emotional. Anger is mentioned hundreds of times throughout the Bible (wrath, anger, angry, etc…). Here’s an interesting study idea. Look up what happens when a man is angry in the Bible, and then look up what happens when God is angry in the Bible. Man’s anger always leads to destruction and in scripture, murder was often the result (Cain, Haman, Esau, Saul, Herod, etc…). God’s anger always led to justice.
This is why James 1:20 says, “The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God”. I cannot think of even one instance in my marriage where anger has led to a positive outcome.
Moses broke the stone tablets in his anger and had to rebuild them. What will you have to rebuild because of your anger?
The purpose of anger is to correct an injustice. But why don’t you leave that to God next time it crops up in your marriage?
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Romans 12:19
Check out the top 10 habits that will destroy your marriage.
Take a look at this list of sins:
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: Colossians 3:5
Right there among fornication and idolatry is the sin of covetousness. Wanting something that we can’t or shouldn’t have is a pretty big deal to God. It can also have a terrible impact on marriages. All the way back in Exodus 20, God was pretty clear in the 10 commandments to Israel, that we shouldn’t covet our neighbor’s wife or anything that is thy neighbors.
Covetousness starts with a small seed of discontentment. Spouses get their eyes set on earthly goods and end up buying things they shouldn’t or being financially irresponsible. Money problems wreak havoc on marriages every year and discontentment is often the source. Maybe you are unhappy with your mate’s appearance, work ethic, or habits. Discontent leads to covetousness, which leads to serious problems down the road. Stay away from this habit.
9. Taking Your Spouse For Granted
We can get too comfy in our lives and take those around us for granted. But what if you woke up tomorrow and your spouse didn’t. What if your husband didn’t come home from work? Life is unpredictable. No man knows how many days he has left. So let’s make every day count. Yes, you are married and you live with your spouse and see them more than most people but you aren’t promised another day with them. If we changed our thinking to this way of thinking how different would our lives look?
Don’t take your spouse for granted.
Life gets crazy sometimes and busy seasons can come and go. But when we let the busyness of life continually pull us away from our spouse we are in danger of destroying our marriage. We need to be purposefully setting aside time to be with our spouse. We need to be connecting and sharing our lives with each other for a healthy marriage. Even amidst the craziness of life we need to set time aside to connect.
If your budget doesn’t allow many date nights then be creative with at home dates. Stay up late or wake up early to spend time with each other. Read a book together or play a board game. We can never invest too much time into our marriage. It is time well spent and we will reap the benefits of it for years to come.
Remember, habit is a wonderful servant but a horrible master. If you can develop good habits in your marriage it will serve you well for many years to come. If you allow bad habits to creep in, you can look forward to years of struggle instead. Nip those bad habits in the bud!
Did you know that a man named Walter Summerford was struck by lightning 3 times in…
Walter Summerford was struck by lightning three times in his life. Lightning bolts can be scary. Given the fact that they are electrically charged flashes and they travel at impossibly high speeds, the possibility that you can get hit by a lightning is quite horrifying. And if you’re daily job requires you to spend great amounts of time in the outdoors, yours chances of getting struck are even higher than most people’s ones.
Take this guy for example. Back in the distant 1916 a lightning bolt struck the grave of Walter Summerford. Mr. Summerford died 4 years before his gravestone was struck and during his lifespan he himself was struck by a lightning a total of 3 whopping times! Official reports show that he was a sportsman, meaning his profession increased his chances of getting hit. However, Summerford didn’t have it nearly as bad as Roy Sullivan. Sullivan, who was an American forest ranger, got hit a total of 7 times during his lifetime. He even got into the Guinness Book of World Records as the man, who was struck by lightning bolts more times than any other person on the planet. He died at the age of 71 back in 1983.
When there is light, there is hope.
A picture of a boy doing his homework by the roadside in the Philippines has gone viral after student Joyce Torrefranca posted the photo on her Facebook on June 23.
Since then, the picture has received more than 6,000 shares and 406 likes.
In the photo, the boy is seen sitting on the floor and doing his homework with the help of light illuminated from a McDonald’s outlet.
British newspaper Daily Mail has identified him as nine-year-old Daniel Cabrera who studies at an elementary school in Mandaue City in Cebu.
There has been an outpouring of aid for Daniel from those who saw the heart-wrenching photo of him on the Internet.
He has received cash donations, school supplies, school uniforms, a reading lamp as well as a college scholarship, AFP reported.
His mother, Christina Espinosa told AFP: “We’re overjoyed. I don’t know what I will do with all of these blessings.”
“Now, Daniel will not have to suffer just to finish his studies,” said the 42-year-old, who works at a grocery store as well as a domestic helper.
Ms Torrefranca, who is a medical student at Cebu Doctors’ University, told Philippine news network ABS-CBN that as a student herself, she was inspired by the boy and admired his dedication.
“It just hit me a lot, like, big time. I seldom go to coffee shops to study. And then this kid, he doesn’t have anything but he has dedication to study.”
Facebook user Giomen Probert Ladra Alayon commented: “This kid’s perseverance in studying makes this picture such an inspiration. Despite the lack of personal space or inadequate lighting, still he chose to study. Keep it up, kid!”
ABS-CBN reported that Daniel parks himself near the fast food outlet every night as it is the only source of light near his temporary home. The family has no permanent home after their house was destroyed in a fire five years ago.
Daniel – together with his mother and two siblings – has been living at his mother’s workplace.
His father died in 2013 from severe diarrhoea.
Ms Espinosa said her son dreams of becoming a policeman and has his eyes set on the future.
“He is a very studious and determined boy… He would insist on going to school even without his lunch money because I have no money to give,” Ms Espinosa told AFP.
“He always tells me: ‘Mama, I don’t want to stay poor. I want to reach my dreams’,” she said.
Daniel has also received more support from the local church and government social welfare office.
Violeta Cavada, the city’s social welfare office chief, told AFP: “Our problem is how to manage all this financial assistance. He has become a symbol of poor slum boys in the city who can’t study because they don’t have electricity.”
In a Facebook post on June 27, Ms Torrefranca wrote: “I didn’t think that a simple photo can make a huge difference. Thank you guys for sharing the photo. With that, we were able to help Daniel in reaching his dreams. I hope Daniel’s story will continue touching our hearts so that we will always be inspired and motivated in every situation we face in life.”