question:You are a helpful assistant, who always provide explanation. Think like you are answering to a five year old. Irving Kristol, Godfather of Modern Conservatism, Dies at 89 Mr. Kristol translated his concerns into a magazine. In 1965, with a 10,000 contribution from a wealthy acquaintance, he and Daniel Bell started The Public Interest. Its founding is generally considered the beginning of neoconservatism. “Something like a ‘movement’ took shape,” Mr. Kristol wrote, “with The Public Interest at (or near) the center.” The Public Interest writers did not take issue with the ends of the Great Society so much as with the means, the “unintended consequences” of the Democrats’ good intentions. Welfare programs, they argued, were breeding a culture of dependency; affirmative action created social divisions and did damage to its supposed beneficiaries. They placed practicality ahead of ideals. “The legitimate question to ask about any program,” Mr. Kristol said, “is, ‘Will it work?’,” and the reforms of the 1960s and ’70s, he believed, were not working. For more than six decades, beginning in 1942, when he and other recent graduates of City College founded Enquiry: A Journal of Independent Radical Thought, his life revolved around magazines. Besides The Public Interest, Mr. Kristol published, edited and wrote for journals of opinion like Commentary, Encounter, The New Leader, The Reporter and The National Interest. All were “little magazines,” with limited circulations, but Mr. Kristol valued the quality of his readership more than the quantity. “With a circulation of a few hundred,” he once said, “you could change the world.” Small circles and behind-the-scenes maneuverings suited him. He never sought celebrity; in fact, he was puzzled by writers who craved it. Described by the economics writer Jude Wanniski as the “hidden hand” of the conservative movement, he avoided television and other media spotlights; he was happier consulting with a congressman like Jack Kemp about the new notion of supply-side economics and then watching with satisfaction as Mr. Kemp converted President Ronald Reagan to the theory. Mr. Kristol was a man of ideas who believed in the power of ideas, an intellectual whose fiercest battles were waged against other intellectuals. A major theme of The Public Interest under Mr. Kristol’s leadership was the limits of social policy; he and his colleagues were skeptical about the extent to which government programs could actually produce positive change. Neoconservatism may have begun as a dispute among liberals about the nature of the welfare state, but under Mr. Kristol it became a more encompassing perspective, what he variously called a “persuasion,” an “impulse,” a “new synthesis.” Against what he saw as the “nihilistic” onslaught of the ’60s counterculture, Mr. Kristol, in the name of neoconservatism, mounted an ever more muscular defense of capitalism, bourgeois values and the aspirations of the common man that took him increasingly to the right. For him, neoconservatism, with its emphasis on values and ideas, had become no longer a corrective to liberal overreaching but an “integral part” of conservatism and the Republican Party, a challenge to liberalism itself, which, in his revised view, was a destructive philosophy that had lost touch with ordinary people. Neoconservatism maintained a lingering sympathy for certain aspects of Roosevelt’s New Deal, but its focus had shifted to the culture wars and to upholding traditional standards. Liberalism led to “moral anarchy,” Mr. Kristol said, arguing the point with one of his wisecracking encapsulizations: “In the United States today, the law insists that an 18-year-old girl has the right to public fornication in a pornographic movie — but only if she is paid the minimum wage.” Mr. Kristol’s rightward drift, though it brought him new allies like Buckley and Robert Bartley, the head of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, broke up the original Public Interest family. Mr. Moynihan went on to a celebrated career as a Democratic senator from New York, and Mr. Bell gave up the coeditorship of the magazine in the early ’70s, declaring himself a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics and a conservative in culture. (He was replaced by Nathan Glazer.) But neoconservatism turned quite literally into a family affair for Mr. Kristol. His wife, Gertrude Himmelfarb, a distinguished historian of 19th-century England, wrote books and articles critical of modern permissiveness and urged a return to Victorian values. His son, William, who had been Vice President Dan Quayle’s chief of staff, became a leading spokesman for neoconservatism in his own right as a television commentator, the editor of The Weekly Standard and briefly a columnist for The New York Times. Friends referred to them as America’s first family of neoconservatism. Mr. Kristol’s weapon of choice was the biting polemical essay of ideas, a form he mastered as part of the famed circle of writers and critics known as the New York Intellectuals, among them the ferocious literary brawlers Mary McCarthy and Dwight Macdonald. Mr. Kristol once described feeling intimidated at a cocktail party when he was seated with Ms. McCarthy on one side, Hannah Arendt on the other and Diana Trilling across from him. He learned the hard way that he was not destined to be an author of books. In the late 1950s he spent three months researching a study of the evolution of American democracy, only to abandon the project, he said, once he realized “it was all an exercise in futility.” An attempted novel was consigned to his incinerator. “I was not a book writer,” he said. The four volumes published under his name — “On the Democratic Idea in America” (1972), “Two Cheers for Capitalism” (1978), “Reflections of a Neoconservative” (1983) and “Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea” (1995) — are collections of previously published articles. As an essayist, Mr. Kristol was sharp, witty, aphoristic and assertive. “Equivocation has never been Irving Kristol’s long suit,” his friend Robert H. Bork said of him. Before achieving his reputation as a writer on political and social affairs, he was a wide-ranging generalist. In the 1940s and ’50s, his subjects included Einstein, psychoanalysis, Jewish humor and the Marquis de Sade. His erudition could burst out at unexpected moments. An attack on environmental extremists uses a quotation from Auden; a passage about American men’s obsession with golf cites T.S. Eliot. But he could be a verbal streetfighter as well. John Kenneth Galbraith, he wrote, “thinks he is an economist and, if one takes him at his word, it is easy to demonstrate that he is a bad one.” After it was revealed that Magic Johnson had tested HIV positive, Mr. Kristol wrote: “He is a foolish, reckless man who does not merit any kind of character reference.” Mr. Kristol seemed to need enemies: the counterculture, the academic and media professionals who made up what he called the New Class, and finally liberalism in its entirety. And he certainly made enemies with his harsh words. Yet underlying the invective was an innate skepticism, even a quality of moderation and self-mockery, which was often belied by his single-mindedness. This stalwart defender of free enterprise could manage only two cheers for capitalism. “Extremism in defense of liberty,” he declared, taking issue with Barry Goldwater, “is always a vice because extremism is but another name for fanaticism.” And the two major intellectual influences on him, he said, were Lionel Trilling, “a skeptical liberal,” and Leo Strauss, “a skeptical conservative.” “Ever since I can remember,” he said in summing himself up, “I’ve been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative and, in religion, always a neo-orthodox, even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I’m going to end up a neo. Just neo, that’s all. Neo-dash-nothing.” Irving William Kristol was born on Jan. 20, 1920, in Brooklyn into a family of low-income, nonobservant Jews. His father, Joseph, a middleman in the men’s clothing business, went bankrupt several times; his mother, Bessie, died of cancer when he was 16. “We were poor, but then everyone was poor, more or less,” Mr. Kristol recalled. In the late 1930s he attended City College, the highly politicized, overwhelmingly Jewish New York institution where his indignation at the injustices of the Great Depression pushed him to the left, but not the far left. In the large, dingy school cafeteria were a number of alcoves where students could gather with like-minded colleagues. There was an athlete’s alcove, a Catholic alcove, a black alcove, an ROTC alcove. But the alcoves that later became famous were Numbers One and Two. Alcove One held leftists of various stripes; Alcove Two housed the Stalinists, including a young Julius Rosenberg. The Stalinists outnumbered the anti-Stalinists by as much as 10-1, but among the anti-Stalinists were Mr. Bell as well as the future sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset and the future literary critic Irving Howe. Mr. Howe recruited Mr. Kristol into the Trotskyists, and though Mr. Kristol’s career as a follower of the apostate Communist Leon Trotsky was brief, it lasted beyond his graduation from City College, long enough for him to meet Ms. Himmelfarb at a Trotskyist gathering in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn. He fell in love, and the two were married in 1942, when she was 19 and he was just short of his 22nd birthday. Besides William, they also had a daughter, Elizabeth. They, along with their mother and five grandchildren, survive him. After marrying, Mr. Kristol followed his wife to Chicago, where she was doing graduate work and where he had what he called “my first real experience of America.” Drafted into the Army with a number of Midwesterners who were street-tough and often anti-Semitic, he found himself shedding his youthful radical optimism. “I can’t build socialism with these people,” he concluded. “They’ll probably take it over and make a racket out of it.” In his opinion, his fellow GI’s were inclined to loot, rape and murder, and only Army discipline held them in check. It was a perception about human nature that would stay with him for the rest of his life, creating a tension with his alternative view that ordinary people were to be trusted more than intellectuals to do the right thing. After the war he and Ms. Himmelfarb spent a year in Cambridge, England, while she pursued her studies. When they returned to the United States in 1947, he took an editing job with Commentary, then a liberal anti-Communist magazine. In 1952, at the height of the McCarthy era, he wrote what he called the most controversial article of his career: “ ‘Civil Liberties,’ 1952 — A Study in Confusion.” It criticized many of those defending civil liberties against the government inquisitors, saying they failed to understand the conspiratorial danger of Communism. Though he called Senator McCarthy a “vulgar demagogue,” the article was remembered for a few lines: “For there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: he, like them, is unequivocably anti-Communist. About the spokesmen for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing. And with some justification.” After leaving Commentary, Mr. Kristol spent 10 months as executive director of the anti-Communist organization the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, and in 1953 he removed to England to help found Encounter magazine with the poet Stephen Spender. They made an unlikely pair: Mr. Spender, tall, artsy, sophisticated; Mr. Kristol, short, brash, still rough around the edges. Together, they made Encounter one of the foremost highbrow magazines of its time. But another explosive controversy awaited Mr. Kristol. It was later revealed that the magazine had been receiving financial support from the C.I.A. Mr. Kristol always denied any knowledge of the connection. But he hardly appeased his critics when he added that he did not disapprove of the C.I.A.’s secret subsidies. Back in New York at the end of 1958, Mr. Kristol worked for a year at another liberal anti-Communist magazine, The Reporter, then took a job at Basic Books, rising to executive vice president. In 1969 he left for New York University, and while teaching there he became a columnist for The Wall Street Journal. It was during this time that Mr. Kristol became uncomfortable with liberalism, his own and others’. He supported Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey in his 1968 presidential campaign against Richard M. Nixon, saying that “the prospect of electing Mr. Nixon depresses me.” But by 1970 he was dining at the Nixon White House, and in 1972 he came out in favor of Nixon’s re-election. By the mid-’70s he had registered as a Republican. Always the neoconservative, however — aware of his liberal, even radical, roots and his distance from traditional Republicanism — he was delighted when another Democratic convert, President Ronald Reagan, expressed admiration for Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1987 he left New York University to become the John M. Olin Distinguished Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. By now Mr. Kristol was battling on several fronts. He published columns and essays attacking liberalism and the counterculture from his perches at The Wall Street Journal and The Public Interest, and in 1978 he and William E. Simon, President Nixon’s secretary of the treasury, formed the Institute for Educational Affairs to funnel corporate and foundation money to conservative causes. In 1985 he started The National Interest, a journal devoted to foreign affairs. But Mr. Kristol wasn’t railing just against the left. He criticized America’s commercial class for upholding greed and selfishness as positive values. He saw “moral anarchy” within the business community, and he urged it to take responsibility for itself and the larger society. He encouraged businessmen to give money to political candidates and help get conservative ideas across to the public. Republicans, he said, had for half a century been “the stupid party,” with not much more on their minds than balanced budgets and opposition to the welfare state. He instructed them to support economic growth by cutting taxes and not to oppose New Deal institutions. Above all, Mr. Kristol preached a faith in ordinary people. . “It is the self-imposed assignment of neoconservatives,” he wrote, “to explain to the American people why they are right, and to the intellectuals why they are wrong.” Mr. Kristol saw religion and a belief in the afterlife as the foundation for the middle-class values he championed. He argued that religion provided a necessary constraint to antisocial, anarchical impulses. Without it, he said, “the world falls apart.” Yet Mr. Kristol’s own religious views were so ambiguous that some friends questioned whether he believed in God. In 1996, he told an interviewer: “I’ve always been a believer.” But, he added, “don’t ask me in what.” “That gets too complicated,” he said. “The word ‘God’ confuses everything.” In 2002, Mr. Kristol received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, often considered the nation’s highest civilian honor. It was another satisfying moment for a man who appears to have delighted in his life or, as Andrew Sullivan put it, “to have emerged from the womb content.” He once said that his career had been “one instance of good luck after another.” Some called him a cheerful conservative. He did not dispute it. He had had much, he said, “to be cheerful about.” Write a one or two sentence summary.

question:You are an AI assistant. User will you give you a task. Your goal is to complete the task as faithfully as you can. While performing the task think step-by-step and justify your steps. The José Celestino Mutis botanical garden is Colombia's biggest botanical garden. It serves both as a recreation and research center with an emphasis on Andean and Páramo ecosystems. The garden is located in Bogotá and features plants from every Colombian altitude, climate and region. It was founded in 1955, in honor of botanist and astronomer Jose Celestino Mutis. Based on that paragraph can we conclude that this sentence is true? Jose Celestino Mutis likes coffee. Select from: (1). Yes. (2). It's impossible to say. (3). No.

question:User will you give you a task with some instruction. Your job is follow the instructions as faithfully as you can. While answering think step-by-step and justify your answer. Definition: In this task you will be given a claim and a perspective. You should determine whether that perspective supports or undermines the claim. If the perspective could possibly convince someone with different view, it is supporting, otherwise it is undermining. Input: claim: Parents should introduce children to alcohol (in moderation) at an early age. perspective: Positive association with alcohol Output:

question:You are an AI assistant. User will you give you a task. Your goal is to complete the task as faithfully as you can. While performing the task think step-by-step and justify your steps. Here's a question: Where would a company's committee meet for a meeting? Here are possible answers to this question: - church - office building - city hall - zoo - boardroom I believe the correct choice is "boardroom", here's why: A: