On Friday I reached the end of my three-year job commitment. When I started this job, I had to sign a document stating that I’d stay at the job for at least three years. Everyone else has ti sign the same document. I think it’s because they don’t want us leaving too soon for higher-paying jobs in the private sector.

Three years ago, three years seemed like a long time, but they’ve gone by pretty quickly and uneventfully. While my personal life has had its ups and downs and dramatic moments, my job situation has been pretty constant. And while I spent parts of the past three years wishing they’d go by faster or thinking it might be worth a resignation in bad standing in order to leave before my time was up, I’ve come to feel relatively content in my job. It’s not my life’s work, but for now it’ll do.

My fear is that one day I’ll turn around and realize I’ve been here for 30 years. I don’t want that to happen. I’ve got goals, murky though they may be. Starting tonight, I’m taking a 10-week class in feature writing. I want to have a writing career. Choire is still a role model for me in some ways; while I don’t write about the same things he does, I admire how he’s managed to convey a natural writing talent into several ongoing gigs, including Gawker (previously) and occasional pieces for the New York Times. One of my dreams would be to write regularly for the New Yorker, like Malcolm Gladwell and Adam Gopnik and Louis Menand and Rebecca Mead do. Mostly, though, I just want to feel free to write whatever the hell I want and to express whatever the hell opinion I want without worrying about getting fired for it.

One of the themes of “Angels in America” is that human beings naturally want to keep moving. We can’t help but have dreams to fulfill. I want to fulfill mine, or I want to at least hope that I can.

Here are some relationship rules from Hot Toddy.

I’ve been thinking about Kerry and the perils of running on one’s voting record. It’s so easy for the Bush campaign to use various past votes by Kerry to try to illustrate things about Kerry’s beliefs and about what he would or wouldn’t do.

But there are different reasons why a U.S. senator might vote a certain way. True, a senator’s vote might reflect his own beliefs. But it might reflect the beliefs of his constituents — the residents of his state. Or a senator might vote tactically, knowing that the outcome is going to be so lopsided in one direction or another that his individual vote won’t matter.

For instance, suppose the Senate is voting on whether to levy trade sanctions against Frabonia. You’re a senator, and a majority of your state’s constituents are either ethnically Frabonic-American or benefit from U.S.-Frabonic trade and would oppose such sanctions. You yourself believe that sanctions against Frabonia are extremely necessary, but you know you’d get in trouble with your home state if you voted that way. So you’re torn between your constituents’ views and your own views.

You’d have a difficult choice if the potential vote in the Senate was really close; your vote could decide the issue. Fortunately, though, something like 70 out of 100 senators are known to support the sanctions. Since you know the sanctions are going to happen now matter how you vote, you can safely vote against the sanctions, mirroring your constituents’ desires and thereby preserving your chances for re-election.

Unfortunately, a few years later you run for President, and U.S.-Frabonian relations are a major issue because of the Frabonians’ hostile treatment of its Christian minority. Your opponents make hay out of your earlier vote against the trade sanctions. You can’t say that you personally supported the sanctions but had to vote for what your constituents wanted, because you can’t guarantee you’ll win this race and you might wind up back in the Senate having to run for re-election to your seat at some point.

I think this has a lot to do with why so few senators become party nominees.