The XEL-1 will accept up to a 1080p video image, although the 11-inch screen has a resolution of just 960 pixels by 540 pixels.

The launch of the XEL-1, coming one day before the start of the Ceatec 2007 exhibition, gives Sony a head start on its competitors, many of whom are also working on OLED technology for televisions. After several years of being upstaged by competitors pushing into new technology areas, such as MP3 players and LCD televisions, the OLED launch puts Sony firmly ahead in the race to thinner flat-screen televisions.

OLEDs offer other advantages over LCD and PDP technology, including wider viewing angles, faster response time, and better contrast and colors. However, the technology is difficult to manufacture and the OLED material degrades over time.

Sony said the XEL-1 has a viewing life of 30,000 hours, which allows a user to watch eight hours of television each day for 10 years. The television goes on sale in Japan on Dec. 1, and will cost US$1,740.50. Currently, there are no plans to sell the television outside Japan, as Sony plans to manufacture just 2,000 sets each month.

The XEL-1 has a thin, widescreen display mounted on a metal arm attached to a base. The base contains all of the electronics required for the television, and has an HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) port, a built-in satellite tuner, as well as a USB port and an Ethernet connection.

The television, which uses the same XMB user interface found in the company's Bravia line of LCD televisions and PlayStation 3, measures 287 mm by 253 mm by 140 mm, and weighs 2 kilograms.

The Topps Meat Co.'s massive frozen hamburger beef recall has many shoppers worried about the safety of their meat, after it may have sickened 25 people in eight states.

"You don't know what's in it," one concerned shopper said. "It makes me feel very scared, and I don't know what to eat."

The recall, which includes 21.7 million pounds of meat, is enough to make a McDonald's regular hamburger for every adult in America.

The meat in question was made in late June and July. The E. coli in the hamburger beef began sickening people in August. It took nearly six weeks before the first recall was issued.

"We don't understand why it took so long to recall this meat. If there was a victim in August, it should have been revealed weeks ago," said Jean Halloran of the Consumers Union.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the industry, said there were no recall delays. However, when the first recall went out Tuesday, only a small amount was recalled. By the weekend, the recall was expanded by more than 600 times.

One victim, who tasted the tainted beef, was 15-year-old Samantha Safranek. She had severe stomach cramps in August after eating it.

"It almost cost my life," Safranek said. "I was just scared the whole time, just thinking, if I was even going to make it. And I didn't want a silly burger just to kill me."

The food recall is the latest in a rash of E. coli-related callbacks this year, including tainted spinach and salad mixes. The USDA said it is unable to explain why there have been so many outbreaks.

However, critics complain that every lot of processed meat should be tested, which is something not required today.

Liberals fear him. Conservatives distrust him. But all eyes will be on Kennedy as the court opens its 2007-08 term Monday with a string of major cases on the horizon that appear headed for 4-to-4 deadlocks.

Among them is a dispute over gun rights in Washington, D.C., a battle over the legal rights of terror suspects at the Guantánamo detention center, and a challenge to the president's power to order state judges to uphold international court rulings.

In addition, the high court will examine whether execution by lethal injection in Kentucky is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, and whether the Constitution forbids Indiana from requiring voters to produce photo identification prior to casting a ballot.

The same internal dynamics among the justices that produced a string of conservative victories on abortion, affirmative action, and campaign finance last term will again be on full display. But this term, Kennedy's positions on pending cases are less clear.

Some analysts say the highest-profile cases this year are likely to bring a broader mix of both liberal and conservative victories. But several of the cases appear too close to call, court watchers say.

One of the most anticipated cases involves a landmark legal dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The justices are being asked to decide whether this is an individual right that belongs to the people or a collective right bestowed by the states through organized militias.

The court has not yet agreed to take up the issue, but many constitutional scholars believe it soon will. If so, it would mark the first time since 1939 that the Supreme Court has examined the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Two related cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) and Parker v. District of Columbia (07-335), involve challenges to gun-control laws in the nation's capital. The disputes will take the justices back to the drafting of the Bill of Rights and the foundations of the republic, analysts say.

"This is 1791 for the Second Amendment," Georgetown Law Center Prof. Nicholas Rosenkranz told a recent conference at the Cato Institute in Washington.

Among cases already on the court's docket, one of the most important involves terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay and to what extent they are entitled to challenge their open-ended detention as enemy combatants.

Lawyers for the detainees filed habeas corpus petitions asking federal judges in Washington to examine the legality of their clients' continued confinement. The Bush administration says that because the detainees are foreign enemy combatants being held outside the United States, they are not entitled to the protections of habeas corpus. In 2006 Congress, then controlled by Republicans, passed a law that stripped federal judges of jurisdiction to hear cases brought on behalf of detainees at Guantánamo.

When lawyers for the detainees first asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue, the justices refused. Then, in a highly unusual move, the justices agreed three months later to hear the appeal. This has led to speculation that the court is primed to overturn an earlier federal appeals court ruling upholding the Bush administration's position and the 2006 law.

Some analysts go even further. "The court took this case to make a larger statement of who we are as a people," says Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown Law Center, who also represents a Guantánamo detainee in a pending case.

Professor Katyal, speaking on a recent panel at Georgetown, said the court will probably rule that fundamental rights apply at Guantánamo. "I expect a broader holding than we have had in the past," he added.

Supporters of the Bush administration say the court is unlikely to take such a dramatic step – even six years after the 9/11 attacks. The US is still at war, they say.

One proposal approved 21-17 by the Republican-led Senate would aim to save money by changing how health insurance benefits for teachers and government workers are managed.

The measure, now headed to the Democrat-led House, is key to the overall budget deal because it could be a trade-off to get Republicans to vote for tax increases.

The House passed bills to create incentives for Medicaid recipients to lead healthy lifestyles, among other reforms, which now are headed to the Senate.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm has told about 35,000 of the state's more than 53,000 workers not to report to work on Monday if a shutdown occurs. The remaining workers, mostly related to public health and safety, would stay on the job.

A partial state shutdown would mean most government operations would cease, including liquor deliveries, lottery ticket sales, the issuance of driver's licenses and construction on state roads.

Republicans have pushed Granholm to accept a temporary budget that would extend the one currently in place, giving legislators more time to craft a long term deal.

Granholm has said she won't sign a temporary budget unless she has assurances higher taxes to pay for education, public health and other programs are part of the deal.

Leaders in both the Democrat-led House and Republican-controlled Senate are optimistic a deal will be reached to avoid a shutdown.

Democrats, who wrote the legislation and provided most of its votes, generally portray themselves as champions of the poor. They do not dispute that the tax plan would hit poor communities disproportionately, but they say it is worth it to provide health insurance to millions of modest-income children.

All the better, they say, if higher cigarette taxes discourage smoking.

"I'm very happy that we're paying for this," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in an interview Friday, noting that the plan would not add to the deficit. "The health of the children is extremely important," he said. "In the long run, maybe it'll stop people from smoking."

Congress probably will revisit the cigarette tax issue soon because President Bush has pledged to veto the proposed $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The decade-old program helps families buy medical coverage if their income is too high to qualify for Medicaid.

Bush has proposed a more modest growth for the program, and both political parties seem inclined to pay for it through a tax on an unpopular group, cigarette smokers.

By most measures, the average smoker is less privileged than the average nonsmoker. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers, compared with 23.5 percent of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics.

The American Heart Association reports that 35 percent of people with no more than 11 years of schooling are smokers. Those with 16 or more years of formal education smoke at a 12 percent rate.

Non-Hispanic black men smoke at slightly higher rates than do non-Hispanic white men. But the reverse is true among women.

The demographics of smoking and taxation received scant attention during last week's House and Senate debates, perhaps because many Democrats and Republicans agree that cigarettes are the best target for tax increase if the insurance program were to grow. A few lawmakers, however, took a swing.

"I know there is very little sympathy for smokers these days," Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said during the House debate. "But it is still a tax increase on the backs of the smokers. And in order to get enough money to pay for this, it would require 22 million new smokers."

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., defended putting the burden of expanded medical care on smokers.

"The tobacco tax is a great way to pay for it," he said, "because if you tax people who are smoking and they smoke less, then we have less health problems."

Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., did not buy that logic. "To propose funding a growing program with a declining revenue source is, I would submit, irresponsible fiscal policy," he said.

If the federal cigarette tax nears $1 per pack, smokers in many states will pay hefty sums into government coffers unless they kick their habit. On top of the federal tax, New Jersey levies a $2.57 per pack tax on cigarettes, followed by Rhode Island at $2.46.

California is near the middle, at 87 cents a pack. Three states tax cigarettes at less than 30 cents per pack. South Carolina is the lowest at 7 cents.

Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris USA, based in Richmond, Va., said a steep federal tax increase could accelerate the national decline in smoking to the point that the insurance would have to find other revenue sources.

The average U.S. price of a pack of cigarettes has risen by 80 cents since 1999, Phelps said, largely because of state tax increases. State and federal governments received more than $21 billion in cigarette excise taxes in the 2006 budget year, he said, "so we think this trend is unfair to adults who smoke and to retailers who sell tobacco products."

In Congress, these groups receive little sympathy. But some lawmakers say voters should know the details of the insurance program's proposed funding structure.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who spoke against the bill in last week's debate, said: "The headline ought to read, 'Smokers in America to pay for middle-class welfare.'"

"It's kind of like horse racing. If you're a horse that does well in the last sprint, you wait. But if you wait too long, there's going to be too much distance for you to catch up and you're not going to make it," said Steffen Schmidt, professor of political science at Iowa State University.

While supporters are impressed with Obama's signs of strength - his fund-raising prowess, the huge crowds at rallies, the Internet following - some are getting anxious that he hasn't risen in the polls.

"I am worried that he hasn't done more to close the gap," said a New York lawyer who has donated the maximum $2,300 to Obama's campaign and spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's positive that he hasn't fallen farther behind."

Preeta Bansal, a New York supporter, said she's not concerned.

"It's going to be a long fall. The race is just beginning and he's on fire," said Bansal, referring to recent stump speeches where she said he's been "superb."

New York City Councilman James Sanders, a Queens Democrat who supports Obama, conceded that supporters are "always concerned" and looking for the candidate to shine. But he said there's tremendous excitement for Obama, and real optimism that he can knock out Clinton.

"On the ground, the people, the groundswell is growing," Sanders said.

To overtake Clinton, the Obama campaign plans to drive home the message that the battle comes down to the following question: "Who do people think is most likely to bring about the change we need?"

David Axelrod, a top Obama adviser, said the Illinois senator won't hesitate to draw sharp contrasts with Clinton where contrasts are "germane and real." But don't expect a smackdown any time soon.

"I know there's a rooting interest, a kind of blood lust in the political community to see a kind of steel-cage match between Obama and Hillary," Axelrod said. "I don't think that's either politically smart or consistent with who he is."

The campaign has pinned much of its strategy on winning Iowa. Polls show Obama is in a close three-way race there with Clinton and John Edwards.

The campaign also has begun to deploy staff and build up ground operations in the states holding primaries on Feb. 5. And in the coming months, star supporter Oprah Winfrey "will do some things for us," Axelrod said.