A prep course for the month-long World Cup soccer tournament, a worldwide pheno

o out on the street . '' The Fox folks dismissed the criticism . `` Crime is the

 number one concern of our viewers , '' said Charlie Folds , WSVN 's director of

 press and community relations . `` We 're not going to censor the news to placa

te the hoteliers . '' A Herald editorial backed the station , saying that `` ban

ning any source of news is a dangerous gambit . '' Michael Kinsley is abandoning

 his prestigious `` TRB '' column in the New Republic , a name-brand franchise t

hat is carried by The Washington Post , New York Post , Los Angeles Times , Phil

adelphia Inquirer and about 20 other papers . `` I 've been doing it for 11 year

s , '' said the co-host of CNN 's `` Crossfire . '' `` I thought I 'd quit while

 I 'm ahead . Most columns tend to peter out . The deadline pressure of writing 

a column is relentless . ''

 WASHINGTON `` Renaissance Man , '' Penny Marshall 's intellectually ambitious n

ew comedy , is an extravagant and all-too-familiar Hollywood contradiction a mov

ie that celebrates the life of the mind and the uniqueness of the individual but

 does so in glib slogans and is , itself , a sort of knockoff . Set in an Army t

raining camp near Detroit , where an ex-advertising man named Bill Rago ( Danny 

DeVito ) is reduced to taking a job teaching underachieving recruits , `` Renais

sance Man '' comes across at first glance as little more than an olive-drab rein

carnation of `` Dead Poets Society . '' And that holds true for the second and t

hird glance , too . Ostensibly based on the real-life experiences of Michigan sc

reenwriter Jim Burnstein , the film picks up Rago 's life just as his downward c

areer path lands him in front of a ragged bunch of would-be warriors who are an 

IQ point or two shy of being all that they can be . From the beginning , it 's c

lear that Rago 's task to improve their `` basic comprehension '' is mighty . An

d most of the first part of the film is spent scoring cheap points off this sad-

sack group 's lack of brainpower . Still , this squad 's stupidity is irresistib

le . Squeezed into their desks , they seem happy in their cluelessness , banteri

ng and dissing each other cutely without a trace of genuine conflict , like some

 slightly older , racially balanced incarnation of the Little Rascals . They 're

 not troublemakers or bad eggs , and , from all evidence , they want desperately

 to be soldiers and fight for Uncle Sam . It 's just that they 're a trifle slow

 , and if Rago can't help them make progress , they 'll wash out and be tossed b

ack into the hell of their real lives . It 's appropriate that Marshall has chos

en an adman for her main character , because that 's the way she works here , in

 little message nuggets that she packages and sells to her audience . Early on ,

 the recruits are marched in and introduced in the same easy shorthand fashion t

hat the infantrymen were in old war films . There 's the inner-city kid with the

 thick Brooklyn accent , the quiet black football star , a couple of Midwestern 

rubes and the like , each one proudly and generically representing his stereotyp

e . In addition , like contestants in the Miss America pageant , each recruit 's

 past is shaped around a relevant social issue . ( One is beaten by his father ,

 another forgotten by her prostitute mother etc . ) Before Rago gets to know his

 squad , he grouses and harrumphs , making sure that everyone knows he hates eve

ry minute of this khaki purgatory . But after the kids read their bios in class 

, each one telling a tale of heartache , poverty , neglect and worse , Rago chan

ges his tune . At this point , there is a shift in the film 's tone as well , el

iminating the last vestige of dramatic conflict . And when Rago decides that the

 best way to rescue these borderline illiterates is to teach them `` Hamlet , ''

 the movie loses all contact with reality . The rest of the picture is spent red

ucing Shakespeare to the literary equivalent of fast food , while at the same ti

me demonstrating how being smart builds character . `` Victory , '' says DeVito 

, pointing to his head , `` begins here . '' Marshall scores these facile intell

ectual points with her usual proficiency , but her material here is far too thin

 for the audience not to see through it . Also , there 's no flow to her storyte

lling ; we 're bumped along from one hard-sell episode to another . In some scen

es like the one in which one of the recruits is carried off to jail for selling 

crack back home her tear-jerking is merciless . And from the shameless way she c

asts her characters as symbolic victims you 'd think that the film was an act of

 penance . Still , finding uplift in tragedy is Marshall 's specialty and she 's

 gotten damn good at it . ( She 's the only woman filmmaker with two pictures ``

 Big '' and `` A League of Their Own '' to earn more than $ 100 million . ) This

 time , though , her manipulations throw us out of the story rather than pull us

 in . There are so many positive social messages flying around here that it 's a

lmost impossible to keep track of them . And Marshall 's cast of charming young 

actors suffers most . In one scene , Stacey Dash ( who is sweetly appealing as t

he only girl in the class ) is asked to sum up what she has learned from playing

 her character , Ophelia , and she answers , `` Suicide is not the way . '' As s

trange as it sounds , DeVito 's performance is about the only aspect of the film

 that isn't wholly fraudulent , if only because his typical feisty abrasiveness 

protects him from sinking to the level of Marshall 's mawkishness . Still , thos

e who found his Penguin repellent in `` Batman II '' will spit up their popcorn 

over his Gertrude . `` Hamlet '' may be the most indestructible of Shakespeare '

s plays , but `` Renaissance Man '' pounds it into politically correct dust . ``

 Renaissance Man '' is rated PG-13 .

 The ashtray may soon be a collector 's item . The nation 's 50 million smokers 

are feeling like an oppressed minority . Tobacco-control advocates have snuffed 

out cigarettes in airplanes , theaters , ball parks and shopping malls . Many ci

ties prohibit smoking in restaurants and other public places . Congress is now c

onsidering a hefty tax increase on cigarettes , a nationwide workplace smoking b

an and legislation to put the sale and manufacture of tobacco products under the

 regulation of the U.S. . Food and Drug Administration . The states of Florida a

nd Mississippi are suing tobacco companies , trying to recover costs of treating

 disease caused by smoking . To paraphrase a famous cigarette ad : We 've come a

 long way , baby . These accomplishments to curb tobacco use are even more remar

kable considering the strength of the tobacco industry . The tobacco lobby is on

e of the most powerful and well-funded . That lobby reflects the earning power o

f the business in 1992 , a tobacco company , Philip Morris , was the most profit

able business in America , netting almost $ 5 billion . One of tobacco 's most v

ocal foes wears one of its most familiar names . In 1911 , R.J. Reynolds created

 Camel cigarettes today the fastest-selling brand in the country . And today R.J

. 's grandson , Patrick Reynolds , 45 , works full-time as a lecturer and crusad

er against the cigarette industry financing his ventures in part with an inherit

ance rooted in the tobacco fields of North Carolina . When Reynolds was a teen-a

ger , his father died of emphysema . Even that didn't stop the young Reynolds fr

om taking up the tobacco habit . He finally kicked it in the mid '80s , after se

lling all his tobacco stock . In 1986 , he shocked his family by testifying on C

apitol Hill in favor of a ban on cigarette advertising , and quickly became a sp

okesman for the growing tobacco-control movement . Before finding his calling as

 an anti-smoking crusader , Reynolds was an aspiring actor . He uses his thespia

n skills and his famous name to hold the media 's attention and keep tobacco exe

cutives ' feet to the fire . He works out of a modest home in Beverly Hills , Ca

lif. , where he talked about the tobacco industry 's impressive political power 

and his vision of a smoke-free America . Q : There 's been all this activity con

gressional hearings , FDA proposals to regulate smoking , workplace smoking bans

 . Have we reached some sort of critical mass in the anti-smoking movement ? A :

 I really hope so . I 've been calling for FDA regulation of cigarettes for a lo

ng time , and now we have an FDA administrator , David Kessler , who 's saying t

he same thing . He says he 's prepared to show that cigarette manufacturers mani

pulate the levels of nicotine in their products , and he 's waiting for a mandat

e from Congress . The greatest thing that will come out of FDA regulation is tha

t manufacturers will have to print the ingredients on the packs so that people w

ill know what chemicals they are ingesting when they smoke . Meanwhile , ( Rep. 

) Henry Waxman ( D-Calif. ) has a bill to ban smoking in the workplace . That wo

uld be a national ban , and , of course , the tobacco industry is fighting it to

oth and nail , with all their power and might . But the core issue as I see it i

s the power of the tobacco lobby . It 's a microcosm of what 's going on on a la

rger scale . The special interests have often kept from being passed legislation

 which is in the best interest of the public health . So we have to get rid of t

he power of the special interests . Q : What sort of regulation would you like t

o see on the sale and marketing of cigarettes ? A : Appropriate regulation regul

ation which at least duplicates what 's going on in other countries . We should 

have the warning label on the front of the pack , as Canada requires . Ban adver

tising and raise taxes , as Canada has done . The difference between the Canadia

n government and ours ? It 's the power of the special interests and the money t

hat goes into the hands of the politicians . Another important regulation would 

raise the age for purchasing cigarettes to 21 . It would require merchants to ha

ve a license to sell cigarettes , just like liquor . There are statistics which 

really make the case for this of all smokers , 60 percent start by the age of 14

 years old , and 90 percent by the age of 19 . That means only one smoker in 10 

starts after the age of 19 . If we can keep cigarettes away from kids until they

 reach 21 , we could go a long way towards eliminating the problem . So the purc

hase of cigarettes must be regulated as seriously as alcohol . This means bannin

g vending machines as well . You can't buy a beer in a vending machine . But ven

ding machines are how children are getting cigarettes . ( Begin optional trim ) 

Q : Where do the 54 million people who smoke fit into this debate ? Don't we nee

d to focus on them at some point . A : Yes , but I will tell you candidly that w

e have limited dollars and it costs a lot more to get someone to stop smoking th

an it does to educate children not to ever start smoking . It 's vastly more cos

tly to get addicts off cigarettes . I don't think we can ignore or neglect the i

ssue of smoking cessation however . And I think the tobacco industry 's assertio

n that smokers have choice sounds good , but how much of a choice do smokers rea

lly have when cigarettes are as addicting as heroin ? I do believe that if under

 Clinton 's health-care program , employers are going to pay for the health care

 of their employees , then smoking cessation programs should be included in the 

national health-care program . Q : Do you believe people have a right to smoke ,

 and if so what rights do they have ? A : Smoker 's have a right to smoke , but 

the right of non-smokers to breathe clean air supersedes the right of smokers . 

So it is very appropriate to ban smoking in the workplace , in public places lik

e restaurants and airports , in enclosed spaces where people have to breathe . B

ut I don't believe in a cigarette prohibition . The tobacco industry would love 

to have tobacco-control advocates such as myself take the position that cigarett

es should be banned , because then they could call us zealots or fanatics , and 

dismiss us . I take a moderate and what I feel is an appropriate position . ( En

d optional trim ) Q : Some years ago you talked about achieving a smoke-free Ame

rica by the year 2000 . It seemed like an outrageous idea just a few years ago ,

 and now it 's seeming to be something that might almost be achievable . When do

 you think you can put yourself out of business ? A : I don't think I will be ou

t of business in my lifetime . With hundreds of millions of addicts around the w

orld , there will always be plenty of work for tobacco-control advocates . In my

 lectures I always point out that , a few years ago , we thought we 'd never get

 smoking off airplanes , and today we look back and wonder if it was really true

 that there ever was smoking on airplanes . So one day we are going to look back

 and say , `` You mean people used to actually smoke ? '' That day is coming , a

nd that 's a promise .

 MADISON , WIS . President Clinton 's decision to continue China 's `` most-favo

red-nation '' trade status , a favor enjoyed by virtually all nations , was more

 than a matter of economic expediency . Coming shortly after a bewildered Secret

ary of State Warren Christopher was embarrassed in Beijing , the president 's ap

parently agonized decision was a reluctant but definitive recognition that the U

nited States cannot significantly influence the domestic politics of China . It 

is a lesson that should have been learned a half-century ago . Had it been under

stood then , it might have prevented what proved to be a futile U.S intervention

 in the Civil War between Chiang Kai-shek 's Nationalists and Mao Tse-tung 's Co

mmunists , with unhappy consequences for both China and America . But now that t

he lesson is better appreciated than it was prior to the recent ( and probably f

inal ) MFN debate over China , it would be unwise to embrace the opposing view t

hat capitalist economic development will produce political democracy in China . 

This was the argument , with many variations , offered by those who lobbied in f

avor of preserving China 's most-favored-nation status . Prominent among them , 

of course , were U.S. business interests including Boeing , IBM and AT&T who pro

fit handsomely ( or anticipate doing so ) from trade and investment in China . `

` Economic engagement , '' it is self-servingly maintained , is the best means t

o bring about the democratization of China . Yet it requires an extraordinary me

asure of gullibility to believe that foreign economic interests have any serious

 desire to promote democracy in China . Foreign capital is attracted to China , 

in large measure , because the country offers the services of a huge labor force

 that is disciplined , comparatively literate and , above all , inexpensive . In

 addition , the strong state guarantees `` stability and order '' ensuring that 

the labor force remains obedient . There is , understandably , little enthusiasm

 for any process of democratization that might , say , nurture the establishment

 of free trade unions for China 's huge and rapidly expanding industrial work fo

rce now more than 200 million . On the matter of free workers ' unions , interna

tional capitalism and the Chinese Communist Party stand together on common econo

mic ground . To this the Communist Party , haunted since 1980 by `` the Polish f

ear '' of the rise of a Solidarity-type movement , adds political considerations

 as well . But the political direction of the world 's most populous country whi

ch can now claims the world 's third-largest economy as well as the most rapidly

 growing one will ultimately be determined not by foreign capitalism but rather 

by the workings of its own quasi-capitalist system . And here the prospects for 

some process of democratic evolution are less than promising not least of all be

cause the peculiar Chinese version of capitalism lacks an independent capitalist

 class , a consequence of its communist origins . At the end of 1978 , when Deng

 Xiaoping began dismantling the old Soviet-style `` command economy '' in favor 

of what is now called a `` socialist market economy , '' China had no entreprene

urial class . The Chinese bourgeoisie had largely been destroyed by the Communis

t Revolution of 1949 , and what remained was gradually absorbed by the new state

 in the 1950s . Thus with the decision to pursue economic reform , a class of ca

pitalist entrepreneurs had to be created to construct a market economy and permi

t that market to function . The task of creating a capitalist class , ironically

 , could be performed only by the communist state itself . And it was , of cours

e , bureaucrats of the communist regime who were best positioned to take advanta

ge of opportunities the new market mechanisms offered and to heed Deng 's injunc

tion to `` get rich . '' Thus it should not be surprising that the new Chinese b

ourgeoisie ( or rural and urban `` entrepreneurial elites , '' if one prefers ) 

is not only a creature of the communist state and its policies but is actually l

argely composed of party-state officials ( or ex-officials ) , their relatives a

nd friends . While a portion of the bourgeoisie is `` private '' not having spru

ng directly from the bureaucracy they are , nonetheless , dependent on bureaucra

tic patronage for their existence and economic functioning . This dependence is 

reinforced by the eagerness of the most successful private entrepreneurs to join

 the Communist Party , an organization whose principal qualifications for member

ship are now two : wealth and loyalty to the Communist regime . It has been note

d that China 's new capitalists are hostile to popular democratic elections , wh

ich they fear would be dominated by the country 's rural majority a hostility an

d fear shared by the Chinese Communist Party . It is unlikely that a democratic 

political role will be played by a Chinese bourgeoisie so dependent on the state

 and indeed so much a part of the party-state bureaucracy . It is most improbabl

e that a bourgeoisie whose economic fortunes are so dependent on the political f

ortunes of the communist state will mount a serious challenge to the authority o

f that state . Over several generations , it is conceivable that China 's new en

trepreneurs will shed their bureaucratic roots , evolve into a genuinely indepen

dent bourgeoisie and assert their interests ( which may or may not be favorable 

to democracy ) against the state . But for the time being , the members of China

 's new capitalist classes from rural party cadres turned petty entrepreneurs to

 the sons and daughters of powerful communist leaders wheeling and dealing in in

ternational finance and trade from high-rise offices in Shenzhen appear more age

nts of the state than its antagonists . In fact , they are providing the bureauc

racy with a lucrative economic base while at the same time providing the Communi

st Party with a new social base . In playing this dual role , China 's capitalis

ts contribute not to `` pluralism , '' as most Western observers reflexively ass

ume , but rather further blur the line between state and society . The history o

f China 's new moneyed elites thus far provides little support for the currently

 faddish notion of an emergent `` civil society '' that strives to separate itse

lf from the clutches of the state . Indeed , the new entrepreneurs , having larg

ely sprung from the bureaucracy , are psychologically as well as economically de

pendent on the communist state and rely on that state for political protection .

 While the economic future of Chinese capitalism may be bright , there is little

 reason to expect it will be a politically democratic capitalism . Democratic pr

omise in China today resides not in capitalism but rather in the illegal union a

nd other organizing activities of those who seek protection from the working of 

the capitalist market and from the communist state the more than 100million work

ers exploited in the burgeoning rural industrial sector , workers in state indus

tries threatened with loss of job security and the peasants who are again the vi

ctims of rapacious officials .

 WASHINGTON `` The Endless Summer II '' is one of those rare bits of movie margi

nalia that are entirely without merit and , still , a pleasure to sit through . 

Directed by Bruce Brown , who 30 years ago made the same surfer 's trek around t

he globe , the sequel is still the ultimate surfer 's home movie , and a great p

art of its appeal is its unpretentiousness and lack of polish . But this handmad

e quality is also its downside . Though marginally slicker , the movie is as fla

t and corny in concept , sensibility and execution as its predecessor . The phot

ography is ravishing but unimaginative , like the most banal calendar art . The 

continuity is jerky and arbitrary . And the narration is the worst sort of trave

logue prose , alternating among the ungrammatical , the redundant and the hackne

yed . Other than that , it 's perfection . Watching the film , you experience th

e somewhat happy , somewhat disturbing sensation of being sucked into a time war

p . About the only differences are the fashions and the performers , who in this

 bright-spirited sequel are the one major improvement . As before , the kids who

se names are Patrick O' Connell and Robert `` Wingnut '' Weaver are surfers , no

t performers , but they 're charmers nonetheless . The bleached-blond O' Connell

 , who rides a short board and runs up and down his waves like the arm of a lie 

detector , is a sort of happy idiot , giggling his way around the world . By con

trast , Weaver is quieter , darker and more of a soul surfer , taking long , ele

gant rides like the surf dudes of old on his long board . The movie definitely t

ests your patience and begins to live up to its name . Regardless of the beauty