I thought this was a joke, but no. It’s much much better than that.

From the official press release…

NEW YORK – Stephen Colbert may have no taste for the truth, but he does have a sweet tooth. Ben  & Jerry’s has named a new ice cream in honor of the comedian:  "Stephen Colbert’s Americone Dream."
 

It’s vanilla ice cream with fudge-covered waffle cone pieces and caramel.
 

Announcing the new flavor Wednesday, Ben & Jerry’s called it: "The sweet taste of liberty in your mouth."
 

The Vermont-based ice-cream maker is known for naming its flavors  after people such as Jerry Garcia, Wavy Gravy and the band Phish —  which Colbert sees as a political bias.
 

"I’m not afraid to say it. Dessert has a well-known liberal agenda,"  Colbert said in a statement. "What I hope to do with this ice cream is  bring some balance back to the freezer case."
 

Colbert, who spoofs flag-waving conservative pundits on his Comedy  Central show, "The Colbert Report," is donating his proceeds to charity  through the new Stephen Colbert Americone Dream Fund, which will  distribute the money to various causes.

JRH015, a bill “REQUESTING CONGRESS TO COMMENCE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES” has been introduced in Montpelier has been introduced. The AP has this to say:

Organizers want legislatures around the country to adopt resolutions asking for impeachment proceedings to begin against the president. They argue that if resolutions are adopted, Congress would be forced to consider them under a little-known provision of a parliamentary manual drafted by Thomas Jefferson for the conduct of the House and Senate.

They say that manual requires Congress at least to consider impeachment if the state legislatures demand it.

Again, this is a bill excercising a State’s right under Section 603 of the Jefferson’s Manual (a guide to US House procedures) to initiate federal impeachment proceedings. This represents the latest step forward in the work of a lot of people who believe the time to play politics with Bush is over, and the time to take the integrity of the office of the President, as well as our Constitutional integrity, seriously has long since come.

Unfortunately, the odds are still stacked against the bill:

From the AP again

“I think, in general, we have limited time to address national issues,” [House Speaker Gaye Symington] said. “I made an exception for the Iraq resolution. Vermonters feel very, very strongly about Iraq. There’s a very direct impact because of the budget and the cost of human life.”

The bill is likely to be sent to the House Judiciary Committee for a recommendation on whether the full House should adopt it. But that recommendation may not be coming soon, said Chairman William Lippert, D-Hinesburg.

“I’m guessing I would share many of the sentiments,” said Lippert, who had not yet seen the resolution. “But our own congressional delegation has expressed its reluctance to engage in the impeachment process in Washington. … I think that suggests to me it may not be the best use of our time in the Vermont Statehouse.”

The thinness of this apparently united institutional front to so casually dismiss the effort is belied by the list of twenty co-sponsors:

Aswad, William
Masland, Jim
Nuovo, Betty
Zuckerman, David
Donovan, Johannah Leddy
Pillsbury, Daryl
Sharpe, David
McCullough, Jim
French, Patsy
Marek, Richard
Edwards, Sarah
Rodgers, John
Leriche, Lucy
Haas, Sandy
Hutchinson, Jim
Randall, Dexter
Pearson, Christopher
Davis, Susan
Mrowicki, Michael
Mitchell, Mark

Some heavy hitters there, who obviously do not share the opinion that the measure is somehow a waste of time.

It is interesting to note who is on this list that wasn’t on the co-signer list from last year’s ill-fated bill. Dick Marek, for example, was one of the original measure’s lead critics at the so-called “Rutland Massacre” Democratic State Committee meeting where the original meansure’s momentum was blunted. Missing from the list also are some sponsors of the original, such as Warren Kitzmiller, Michael Fisher and Mark Larson. It’s hard to imagine why they would have a change of heart, given that the transgressions of this President have hardly diminished in the interim.

This time is different, though, for several reasons. It’s not the last few days of the session, it’s not a matter of a few months before an election, and through the Iraq resolution proceedings, the House has provided a model whereby the matter could be taken on directly and with dispatch.

There are no excuses left beyond various iterations of “we’d just rather not deal with it.”

Don’t expect advocates to be thrilled to hear that mantra.