At 6:55 this morning, still dark here in Portland, there was a knock at my front door. My husband had just left for work and I was still in my nightgown.

"Who is it?" I asked, not being able to see through the keyhole, which, for reasons I have no explanation for, is set at six feet high.

"It's Hector," came the voice. "I'm Brendan Mullen's friend."

I remembered meeting Hector during Brendan's trip to Portland last year, to read from Live at the Masque: Nightmare at Punk Alley, his book about the proto-punk club he opened in Hollywood in 1977. Brendan's appearance at Powell's Books had been packed, more crowded than for any of the dozen writers I've seen read there, and as was fitting the subject and its author, included young punks, old punks, and one drunk heckler with a mullet. Brendan patiently answered the questions of each. Brendan always chose his words with care, and often spoke so softly, and with a Scottish burr so burry, one did not realize for several beats that what he'd just said was lacerating or funny or both.

But this morning, not yet having had a cup of coffee, I could not understand why Hector was on my doorstep this early, and so, I asked.

"Brendan died yesterday," he said.

I opened the door. The Army jacket Hector wore looked as though it weighed a hundred pounds. I brought him inside. He told me Brendan had died during a trip up the coast with his longtime girlfriend Kateri Butler; they'd been at a restaurant in Ventura celebrating Brendan's 60th birthday when he had a stroke. I asked if Hector had spoken with Kateri, with whom I worked for years at the LA Weekly. He said he had, several times, including once already this morning.

"I called and woke her up," he said, a little sheepish but it couldn't be helped. He needed to talk about his friend, so much that it drove him out of his own home before dawn to find mine, a place he had only ever been once, a year earlier.

"It's too soon," he said, of Brendan's death. "We still had so many things to do."

We talked about what had been done. About Brendan's books, and his latest project, writing the copy for a Red Hot Chili Peppers coffee table book, copy the publisher had apparently asked to be cleaned-up; they wanted a little less of the early-years drug stuff, a request, Hector said, Brendan thought pretty funny, as did Hector, as did I. We'd all been in LA in the 1980s; we'd directly seen the casualties; I can still see Jamie Slovak, brother of the Peppers original guitarist Hillel Slovak, standing in my driveway the morning after his brother overdosed, looking utterly broken and alone.

Brendan had both driven the LA punk era of the 70s and 80s and documented it, its epiphanies and deaths, its rattiness and joys. But he never seemed, to me, nostalgic for it; he seemed circumspect, and concerned with getting things right. And happy, I told Hector; that the longer I knew Brendan, and I had known him twenty years, the more joyful he became. I told Hector, also, of Brendan's generosity; how after my first big story for the Weekly, he was the first person to phone and congratulate me. It was a call that made me feel validated, as I imagine his giving venue to so many at the Masque did, the way his oral histories did, by giving people voice.

"That's how he was," said Hector, wiping at a tear with a crumpled piece of paper towel.

It's true. And while it is equally true we tend to say nice things about the dead just to say them, I have a story, a recent story that is testament to Brendan's generosity.

It was during his trip to Portland last year, during which I threw a little party for him, to celebrate his book and so he might get together with some of his friends here, and some of mine. Also invited were my 18-year-old daughter and her friends, including her then-boyfriend Aidan, who was playing guitar in the band Wolfgang Williams and the Punk Rock Faggots.

I told Aidan, Brendan Mullen was coming over; that he'd run a club in LA called...

"The Masque," said Aidan. "You're kidding me. You know him? Can I meet him?"

When Brendan arrived, wearing per usual a pork-pie hat, I told him to be ready; that he was going to have a novitiate sitting at his feet. Brendan's eyes went wide in mock alarm, and he said, in all sincerity, that it would be his pleasure to meet Aidan.

Which it evidently was: as the party went on around them, Brendan and Aidan hung out for two hours; they looked through Brendan's books and they talked about Aidan's band. It was a meeting of equals, and it was Brendan's patience, curiosity and genuine kindness that made it so.

I called Aidan just now, to tell him, about Brendan's death.

"That's terrible," he said. "I was just thinking about him two days ago."

What had he been thinking?

"I was thinking," said Aidan, "how nice he was. He was such a nice guy."

Second in an occasional series following Bruce Lisker as he reacquaints with Los Angeles after 26 years in prison. Text and photos by Iris Schneider.

Soon after passing his driving test on Monday morning, Bruce Lisker drove his car to the Sherman Oaks carwash. He pulled in and I jumped out with my camera ready, along with a CBS camera crew that is preparing a special on Lisker's story. The carwash employees couldn't help but notice all the attention. "What, did you win the lottery?" a young man asked. Lisker smiled. "Yeah, something like that," he said.

Reserved, quiet and polite to a fault, Lisker seems to be enjoying every minute on the outside, learning something new every day — like what to tip the car wash workers, or how to use an ATM. "Before I went in, there were no cellular telephones, gps, no internet to speak of. When I was arrested, they were just starting to sell albums on CD. I had never used an ATM, written a check, voted, used a credit card. It was a different world."

"If I was bitter and filled with loathing, no one would want to hang out with me. On the inside I was waiting for one day when I could heal, recover, and part of that is being sociable.

"There were people who set out to destroy me. I'm not going to complete their mission for them. My Dad was always there for me, Joy my stepmother was there for me, she treated me just like a mother, she became in my heart and in hers my mother." Joy passed away years before his release. Lisker is now living with her husband until he gets a job and sets out on his own.

With his driver's license came the last bit of freedom he was craving. "The last time I drove around as a licensed driver was March 10, 1983, driving to my parents' house...Getting my license--it's a milestone in getting back my life. "

He was looking forward to driving alone for the first time in 26 years.

"I want to drive to the beach. It's something I had in my mind for a long time. My parents' ashes were scattered off the coast. It's a resting place. I want to spend some time looking out. I love the beach, it's the edge of forever. The beginning of the ocean, the majesty of everything that can be, of possibility. I love the beach. The girls wear bikinis there."

With a camera crew in tow, he did not get much time alone. A trip to Point Fermin, where his parents' ashes were scattered into the ocean, will come sometime in the near future. Lisker had sought permission in 1995 to leave prison and attend his father's funeral, but permission was denied. He mentions his Dad often, and many memories of his younger life with his parents crowd his thoughts as he reconnects with Los Angeles and the Valley.

Since his release he has been experiencing L.A. with friends and family — a Dodger game, jogging in the park, the Santa Monica pier, his favorite waffle place on Ventura Boulevard, and a trip to the Getty. "Just the building alone is beautiful," he said. "And while I was inside, it struck me: two weeks before I was being guarded at gunpoint. Now, two weeks later, I'm standing in front of a Vermeer."

His days are often packed, busy, doing the simple tasks of ordinary life: shopping, banking, connecting with old friends. "Some days are hard," he says. When asked to explain, he mentions his parents, as he often does when something triggers a memory.

"Both my mom and dad are gone," he says. They can't share his joy, or see him finally free. The sting of that loss, and its enormity, is never far below the surface.

At the car wash, the curious young man approached Bruce. "So man, what's your story?" Lisker explained: "I was in prison for a crime I didn't commit, and I was released about a month ago." The young man's face was serious.

"Wow, I feel that, man," he said. "How long were you in?"

"Twenty-six years," Lisker said.

"Oh no," he replied.

"Yeah," said Lisker. Then he asked, "How old are you?"

"Twenty-one," he answered, and the number seemed to hang in the air as they both grasped what it meant.

This week Lisker will take his first plane trip, to Northwestern University where he will appear on a panel at Northwestern's Law School, along with two other men wrongfully incarcerated as juveniles and now released. The airport security measures, which seem so absurdly excessive to most of us, will feel all too familiar to Lisker.

For the sixth consecutive year, either the Dodgers or Angels have made the playoffs, and this is the third time in that stretch in which both have reached postseason play. I would love to see a Freeway World Series, but in order to get there, both the Dodgers and Angels will have to get by tough first round opponents.

I broke down both series on The Filter with Fred Roggin yesterday, but here is a more in-depth analysis:

Dodgers vs. Cardinals

Both of these two teams finished the 2009 season poorly. The Dodgers seemed to take an eternity to clinch the NL West, while the Cardinals lost eight of their last 10.

Both teams have also struggled offensively of late. The Cardinals really only have two good hitters on their team -- Albert Pujols and Matt Holliday. I hear idiot media pundits all the time say that the Dodgers don't have the big hitters to win in the playoffs, but they forget that no MLB teams are perfect. St. Louis is going to start Ryan Ludwick (disappointing year), Skip Schumaker (no power), Brendan Ryan (an unknown), Colby Rasmus (inconsistent), and Mark DeRosa (.228 average in St. Louis). That's a lot of question marks.

Many of the Dodgers hitters have struggled mightily down the stretch. Manny Ramirez, who has been a major disappointment since he returned from the steroid suspension, hit just .229 in September and he hasn't hit a home run in a while. Matt Kemp hit .241 in September was hitless in two October games. Andre Ethier only hit .212 in the season's final month. Russell Martin has been an enigma all year. Casey Blake and Ronnie Belliard have been banged up lately. Orlando Hudson has fallen out of the lineup. And I have no idea what to expect from Rafael Furcal.

I don't think any of these Dodgers hitters are bad. But I don't think most of them have been at their best. There's a theory that the Dodgers hitters have just been bored for a while, and there is credence to that argument. Still, what I've seen this past month hasn't been encouraging.

When it comes to pitching the Cardinals have two of the best pitchers in the National League in Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright. I'm sure if Joel Pineiro was the Dodgers Game 3 starter then the local media would be freaking out, but he's gotten little attention despite having a solid year. In Game 4 the Cardinals will turn to either Kyle Lohse (who has struggled lately) and John Smoltz (who is barely hanging onto his career).

The Dodgers are going with two lefthanders in the first two games -- Randy Wolf and Clayton Kershaw. That's significant because the Cardinals do not hit lefties well. The team surprisingly announced today that Vicente Padilla will start Game 3 of the series. Rumors of Padilla being a clubhouse cancer were greatly exaggerated. He's pitched pretty well for the Dodgers, going 4-0 with a 3.20 ERA. That being said, neither him, nor Kershaw figure to pitch deeply in games. Perhaps no Dodger starting pitcher has greater questions surrounding him than Chad Billingsley who will start Game 4. I've been one of Billingsley's biggest defenders, but I can't explain his sudden and sharp collapse in the second half after being named an All-Star in July. Still, Billingsley has the talent, his last start was respectable, and he should have plenty of motivation in the postseason. We can only hope he comes through.

All season the Dodgers have gotten 5-6 innings from their starting pitchers and then turned it over to one of the best and deepest bullpens in baseball. George Sherill has been excellent in the 8th inning, and Jonathan Broxton is as tough to hit as anyone in the 9th. If guys like Ronald Belisario, Ramon Troncoso, and James McDonald can be stable, the Dodger pitching should be OK.

St. Louis' bullpen is filled with plenty of no-names who have mostly pitched well. Their closer Ryan Franklin had a stunningly good year, but a lot of sabermetricians think his luck is going to run out.

Both of these teams have veteran managers who are among the all-time leaders in postseason games managed. Joe Torre is known for keeping his teams mentally strong while Tony LaRussa has made many smart strategic moves over the years.

I've been one of the biggest defenders of the Dodgers this season. I felt like most of the criticism levied against them was unwarranted and unfounded, and I've often been appalled at the glee with which local media members have bashed them. That being said, I can't ignore what I've seen the past few weeks with the Dodgers. While there is no evidence that momentum means anything entering the postseason, I don't like the way the Dodgers are playing, and I'm going to pick the Cardinals to win the series.

Angels vs. Red Sox

The Angels have never beaten the Red Sox in a playoff series, going back to 1986 and the famed Donny Moore-Dave Henderson plate appearance. More relevantly, the Red Sox have beaten the Angels in postseason in 2004, 2007 and 2008. Is this the year the Angels come through? I think so.

The Angels have been playing with a great deal of inspiration in honor the late Nick Adenhart. But also, the reason why the Angels have struggled in the postseason is their lack of offense. The Halos will bring their best lineup into the postseason since 2002. Kendry Morales has been the home grown power hitter that they've been searching for. Their young infielders -- Erick Aybar, Maicer Izturis, and Howie Kendrick -- have all been good lately, while Chone Figgins gets on base and has speed. Bob Abreu was a shrewd addition in the outfield and Torii Hunter has had a pretty good year. Juan Rivera swings at a lot of bad balls, but he has power. And while Vladimir Guerrero isn't what he used to be, he's carried his weight since he came back from injury.

The Red Sox lineup is fantastic, and will not lay down against the Angels. Kevin Youkilis is one of the best hitters in baseball and Dustin Pedroia is a reigning MVP. David Ortiz has improved since his atrocious start and Jason Bay is as good as anyone in the outfield. Victor Martinez was also a nice addition.

The difference in this series for me is the pitching. Both Jon Lester and Josh Beckett are phenomenal pitchers, but both suffered late-season injuries, and it remains to be seen if they'll be at full strength. It's hard to believe that a team with a $120 million payroll will make Clay Bucholz their No. 3 postseason starter, but after spending much of the year in the minors, the young Bucholz will get the call. It looks like the Red Sox will go with Lester on short rest in Game 4 rather than going to hobbled pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka. The Red Sox bullpen is a certainly a hodgepodge of characters after Jonathan Papelbon.

The Angels pitching staff is kind of weird. John Lackey, Jered Weaver, Scott Kazmir, and Joe Saunders are all talented pitchers who have all gone through ups and downs this year. But I think they'll come through, especially since the Halos will use two lefties at Fenway Park.

The Angels bullpen is arguably their biggest concern. Brian Fuentes led the AL in saves, but he's hardly lights out. All of the Angels top middle relievers imploaded early in the season, giving way to unproven commodities like Kevin Jepsen and Jason Bulger. No one knew who Francisco Rodriguez was when he dominated for the Angels in the 2002 postseason. I don't think we'll get that out of Jepsen and Bulger, but they're not terrible either.

Overall, I see the Angels going to the ALCS and facing the Yankees, against whom the Halos match up well.

We were lucky enough to get tickets to the Gustavo Dudamel extravaganza at the Hollywood Bowl on Saturday night. (And, thanks to a ride on the Red Line and a short stroll up Highland, were lucky enough to skip the traffic extravaganza that accompanied it.)

Some reviews of the concert from the LAT, NYT, OC Reg, and after the jump (warning -- it was dark and there was wine) some pix.

The IOC vote never ceases to surprise, and the 2016 vote was no exception. The eventual winner, Rio de Janeiro, was somewhat expected, but Chicago's early exit caught many people off guard. While there is a lot of goodwill and positive sentiment towards Rio right now, I seriously question the IOC's decision, and think it might prove to be a mistake.

I will get into my thoughts on Rio a bit later in this post, but first I want to talk about how the vote unfolded. Most of the reporters I've seen on TV and the journalists I've read online really don't understand how this process works, so hopefully I can shed some light on this site. Here is how the vote broke down:

Ballot 1: (95 eligible, 94 valid ballots)
Madrid - 28

Rio - 26

Tokyo - 22

Chicago -18

Ballot 2: (97 eligible, 1 abstention, 95 valid ballots)
Rio - 46

Madrid - 29

Tokyo - 20

Ballot 3: (99 eligible, 1 abstention, 98 valid ballots)
Rio - 66

Madrid - 32
Rio de Janeiro elected.

Vote Analysis

Chicago realized fears some had in being eliminated in the first round. Really, any of the four cities could have been eliminated first. I was concerned that Chicago did not have a strong enough base to get out of the first round, and that appears to have been the case. I thought that President Obama's appearance could have garnered enough votes from Africa in the early round, but in hindsight, these votes are much more about personal relationships.

Former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch made it clear today that his last wish in life is for Madrid to host the 2016 Olympic Games. Samaranch is not as influential as he was even four years ago, but he carried enough weight to give Madrid the first round lead. Many of Samaranch's friends seemingly did not want him to embarrassed with an early Madrid exit.

Tokyo clearly wanted to save face and avoid first round elimination. I can only suspect how the process unfolded, but based on the fact that Tokyo lost two votes in the second round, there were clearly other IOC members who also felt a compelling need to see Tokyo advance at least one round.

The collective strong desires on the part of Madrid and Tokyo to avoid early elimination may have cost Chicago the votes that it needed in the first round to stay alive. Based on the numbers, there were obviously a lot of IOC members who came to Copenhagen with the intention of voting for Rio. But it is plausible that just as many members also intended to pick Chicago, and first round finagling cost the city dearly.

I've long said that the IOC should reform its voting process. While it would be nice to eliminate the secret ballot so that IOC members can be held accountable for their vote, that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

What is reasonable is for the IOC to adopt new rules that prevent vote switching. If 22 IOC members thought that Tokyo had the best bid in the first round, then at least 22 should have thought that Tokyo had the best vote in the second round. There is no logical reason for an IOC member to change his/her mind other than backroom dealing, personal promises, and the desire to make a city look good for as long as possible in the voting.

The IOC's electronic system could easily be programmed to lock in a vote until a city has been eliminated. Another option would be for IOC members to rank their choices 1-4 in advance. Either solution could only help the IOC truly pick the best city to host an Olympic Games and prevent much of the politics that only a handful of old sports bureaucrats really care about.

Another question I have is why one member abstained in rounds 2 and 3. That is something we may never know.

Many observers might note Rio's 66 votes and think that they were going to win no matter what. Heck they were only two votes away from winning outright in the second round. Still, I think that the overwhelming sentiment among IOC members was for the 2016 Games to be held in the Western Hemisphere. I would bet that Chicago would have picked up significant votes in the second and third rounds had they not been eliminated early. When they were out in Round 1, Rio did not have serious competition. Such is the oddities of IOC voting.

My favorite quote of the day comes from Australian IOC member Kevan Gosper in discuss Tokyo's ability to stay alive for the first round at Chicago's expense.

"I'm shocked," Gosper said. "The whole thing doesn't make sense other than there has been a stupid bloc vote."

Chicago Analysis

So what else hurt Chicago? I touched on this in my last post, but President Obama's visit to Copenhagen was not as effective as Tony Blair's was for London 2012 nor Vladimir Putin's was for Sochi 2014. Both of those former world leaders spent several days meeting with 30-40 IOC members and personally lobbied for the Games. President Obama was in Copenhagen for just over four hours, gave one speech, answered one IOC question, and did not meet with any IOC members. While he had the clout to potentially do less than Blair and Putin, I'm sure many members were disappointed that they did not get to meet him personally. I know that Michelle Obama met with numerous IOC members, but unfortunately for Chicago, she was not enough.

Former Danish IOC member Kai Holm said as much, claiming Obama's stopover was "too business-like."

"It can be that some IOC members see it as a lack of respect," Holm added.

Chicago had the disadvantage of presenting first, and technical problems (on the IOC's end) actually delayed their presentation. Rio and Madrid went third and fourth respectively, allowing their emotional appeals to be fresher in voter's minds on what is certainly a long day for them. And while the President and Michelle Obama both gave good speeches, by all accounts Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had the most charismatic and passionate speech of the day. The Brazilian leader has actively been campaigning for Rio for months, and he spent plenty of time meeting with IOC members in the days before the vote. His hard work certainly paid off for Rio.

Another problem for Chicago had nothing to do with its bid - which was technically excellent - and a lot to do with the USOC. I outlined many of the problems with the USOC in my post earlier this week. But in a nutshell, many IOC members are still upset that the USOC receives a disproportionately large share of Olympic television and sponsorship revenues. The USOC has seen considerable leadership turnover over the past decade, making it more difficult for an American city to build relationships with IOC members. Additionally the USOC's botched announcement of a new television network earlier this year proved to be a significant blow.

Swiss IOC member Denis Oswald made his opinion clear: "It was a defeat for the USOC, not for Chicago."

Oswald has been one of the most outspoken critics of the USOC in recent years, and I wouldn't pretend to think that he speaks for most IOC members. That being said, he is on the IOC Executive Board, and his comments indicate to me that at least several of his colleagues came in with the mindset that they would not vote for any American city until the USOC went through some real reform.

If any U.S. city hopes to host an Olympic Games in the future, then the USOC and its new Chairman Larry Probst will have to demonstrably prove that it is an unpretentious partner in the Olympic Movement. The USOC has already made progress to that end in recent years, but they evidently still have more work to do.

Universal Sports' Alan Abrahamson has more on the USOC's failings his post here.

I grew somewhat concerned about Chicago's chances when I heard the questions in the Q&A portion of the presentation. Syed Shahid Ali, an IOC member from Pakistan who would love nothing more than for polo to become an Olympic sport, asked a question he probably knew the answer to about the US's procedures of letting overseas Olympic visitors into American airports. Ukrainian IOC member Sergei Bubka (yes, the former pole vaulting champion) asked about the far distance of the Chicago cycling and shooting venues - again a question he probably knew the answer to. Both Bubka's and Ali's questions only brought to light two of the few perceived weaknesses of the Chicago bid (I'd argue they're not really weaknesses). Considering that Bubka is a fairly influential IOC member and Ali is a vote that Chicago might have been hoping for, it led me to believe that Chicago might have a tough time finding votes. IOC members generally know the answers in Q&A sessions, so there is a calculated reason behind every question.

Finally, I would be remiss not to mention the opposition groups in Chicago that protested an Olympic bid. There were several groups that peppered the IOC with anti-Chicago mail and one group even garnered an audience with the Evaluation Commission earlier this year. Every city has opposition groups, and I strongly disagreed with most of the points made by those against Chicago. That being said, I think they helped weaken Chicago's efforts, and they might have made a difference.

Rio Analysis

As for Rio, I have serious questions about their bid, and fear that the IOC might have made a mistake. I hate to be the person to rain on the Rio parade, because I know there are many people celebrating in South America today. But there are significant problems with the Rio bid that have not been discussed enough in the public sphere, and they need to be addressed.

Many people say that Rio "deserved" the Olympics because they have never been in South America. I can certainly understand that sentiment, but I believe that cities deserve to host an Olympic Games by putting forth the best plan and having the infrastructure in place to invite the world. An Olympic Games is an incredibly complex operation that requires an enormous amount of security, first-rate facilities, and smooth transportation. Only a small handful of cities in the world have the infrastructure in place to pull off an Olympic Games.

Rio has estimated that it will spend $11 billion in construction and infrastructure improvements to host the 2016 Olympic Games. I would be willing to bet that the cost will wind up being at least few billion greater. I've already seen some estimates that have their real expenditures being at $14-15 billion.

Conversely, the Tokyo budget was $4.4 billion, the Chicago budget was $4.8 billion, and the Madrid budget was $5.4 billion. One of the strengths of the Chicago bid was that most thought it could generate the greatest level of revenue from television rights, sponsorship, corporate support, and ticket sales. If Chicago was hoping to make a small, but significant profit at a $4.8 billion budget, then Rio will be hard-pressed not to lose money.

Approximately $5 billion will be spent on Rio's public transportation and potentially another $4 billion on environmental cleanups. Most of those expenditures will be shouldered by either the local or national government. In the meantime, Brazil could be spending another $3 billion on venues for the World Cup in 2014. As a result, much of Brazil's sports marketing resources will be focused on soccer for five of the seven years that IOC members might hope that sports like rowing and judo get promoted in the South American nation.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is hard to think of a scenario in which Brazil does not suffer significant financial strain in the middle of next decade due to its sporting ambitions. At a time when the IOC has repeatedly expressed a desire to see the cost and size of the Games reduced, it's curious that an overwhelming majority of members would vote for a city that could very well cause the headlines the IOC least likes to see - headlines about lack of readiness, cost overruns, growing government debt, etc. I really do hope and pray that I am wrong, but the odds are seemingly against it at this point.

Next, there is the issue of crime in Brazil, which is a serious problem. Alan Abrahamson had an excellent article on it at Universal Sports, which cited a New Yorker story that revealed just how dangerous the city's street are right now. Unfortunately, it appears the IOC allowed P.R. about future policing programs to trump actual data.

Rio also does not have the 48,000 hotel rooms required for an Olympic Games, and will put many visitors up in cruise ships. When Jacksonville hosted the Super Bowl a few years ago, many media members stayed in cruise ships and complained ceaselessly about it. Will the media be more amenable to cruise ship hospitality in 2016 in Rio?

I don't want to make this seem like I'm completely knocking the Rio bid. They could very well prove to overcome these challenges. But I am disappointed in the media for not appropriately covering these problems with the Rio bid - problems I know they will be talking about in seven years. I am also disappointed with the IOC office, which glossed over many of these concerns in the Evaluation Commission report, after noting them in previous documents, including a technical report that deemed Rio incapable of hosting the 2012 Games. I personally believe that these issues were never properly discussed, and the implications for Rio could be tremendous.

What's next?

Many Chicagoans already want their city to host the 2020 Olympic Games. I can certainly sympathize with how they feel. Unfortunately for them, it's hard to see the USOC putting forward a candidate city in four years. As odd as this might sound, many IOC members consider North and South America to effectively be the same region (partially due to the PanAm Games), and will not support a Western Hemisphere Games in 2020.

Expect Cape Town or Durban to have a strong bid for 2020, as Africa is now the last continent not to host the Olympic Games. Much of South Africa's bid will depend on the quality of the World Cup they host next year.

Rome continues to make noise about a 2020 bid, and they would figure to have a good chance. New Delhi has openly discussed an Olympic bid, but they must first get through the 2010 Commonwealth Games, which has seen its fair share of problems. It's possible that a Middle East city such as Doha or Dubai bids for 2020, but the Doha 2016 bid was rejected over weather concerns. I would not be surprised if Tokyo bid again for 2020, and I think they might have a better chance then as well.

For now, it looks like the 2018 Winter Olympic vote will be a four horse race between PyeongChang in South Korea, Harbin in China, Annecy in France, and Munich (which will try to become the first city ever to host both the Summer and Winter Games). There still might be another city or two that gets a bid together for 2018.

The best hope for the U.S. might be for the USOC to make a concerted effort to rebuild and stabilize without worrying about an Olympic bid. If the USOC can make enough tangible progress in the next four years, then Denver and Reno/Tahoe are already interested in bidding for the 2022 Winter Games. I would not expect a U.S. city to host the Summer Olympic Games until at least 2028, and possibly 2032, which would be 36 years after Atlanta.

I have always wondered what it would be like to reenter society after years of wrongful incarceration. Is there anger, bitterness, joy, regret--or all of that? I decided to ask Bruce Lisker, recently released after 26 years in prison for the crime of killing his mother, if I could visit with him occasionally to see how he fares as he rebuilds a life he left so many years ago. He has maintained from the start that he was innocent, and the DA decided on August 21 not to retry him for the crime. He has agreed to let me tag along as he makes a new life for himself. — Iris Schneider

Photos by Iris Schneider

Lisker met me outside the apartment where he is staying, with the widower of his stepmother, in Encino. He has a used car, just bought from his sister, and a learner's permit. In a few days, he will take his driver's test. If he passes, that will mean even more freedom, something he is getting used to.

Lisker, 44, was 17 and on drugs when his mother was murdered. He was in prison for 26 years, convicted of her murder. In that time he has cleaned up his act. He is polite, in good physical shape and looks nothing like the long-haired wild-eyed teen he was at the time of his arrest. He was released in early August, pending a decision on a new trial. At a pretrial hearing last week, the District Attorney, while claiming that he still believed Lisker was guilty, decided not to retry the case. For the first time in 26 years, Lisker left the courtroom a truly free man. He had maintained his innocence and fought hard for his release. Now he has the chance to begin a new life.

"Today is the first day of the rest of my life," Lisker said last week. "I've said that before and I say it again. If I try to live any other way, to make up for lost time, I would be miserable. And I never could accomplish it. I can't do that to myself and to those around me who supported me all these years."

Lisker left prision with the $200 that is usually given to parolees. "They treated me pretty nice and gave me the money as if I was being paroled," he said. Along with some money left to him by his dad, who died in 1995, he has enough for now to get a start on his new life. "He completely believed in my innocence," Lisker says of his father, a former Marine. He is convinced that seeing his son in prison all those years contributed to his early death. "It was so stressful on him. It consumed him."

As we walked the aisles of Target, he looked at his list: laundry detergent, printer ink, maybe a GPS to help him navigate the city more easily, a belt, and some underwear (you were only allowed five pairs of prison issue while incarcerated.) Lisker paused to take it all in and sometimes the absurdity of it made him giddy. Suddenly, there were so many choices.

Mixed in with all the new experiences--like stepping into a Best Buy or Target for the first time--or walking around a mall on fancy marble floors--many memories came flooding back. As we exited the Target parking lot, something looked familiar. "I think this is where the Fedco used to be," Lisker said. "I remember driving down this street with my Dad." Lisker noted that much had changed, but "it's still my Valley." He recalled shopping with his mom as he passed a small line of shops that looked straight out of the 60's.

On Friday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) will vote on the host of the 2016 Summer Olympic Games, choosing between Chicago, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, and Tokyo. Olympic voting is a subject that I know quite a bit about, as I once worked as an International Relations Analyst for New York's 2012 bid.

Writing about the vote on this site might not fit its LA theme, but with President Barack Obama's decision to travel to Copenhagen this Friday, the story is receiving considerable national news, and I feel as though I have quite a bit of insight to offer. With the exception of Alan Abrahamson's fantastic writing at Universal Sports, it's very difficult find information written about the Olympic Movement that's accurate or meaningful, so I will try to shed some light on the upcoming vote.

The way the race shapes up right now, Rio is a slight favorite over Chicago, with Madrid and Tokyo a bit further back. That's the way GamesBids.com and Around the Rings see it, two of the leading Olympic sites out there. That being said, this is the most evenly matched Olympic bid race that I can remember, and it is entirely possible that any one of the four cities could be eliminated in the first round or wind up winning the whole thing.

Barack Obama's decision to travel to Copenhagen gives the Chicago bid a tremendous boost, but it does not assure them a victory. Four years ago, I was in Singapore for the 2012 vote when London, Paris, Madrid, New York, and Moscow all competed. Paris was generally considered the favorite, but then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair traveled to Singapore and met with over 30 IOC members. Conversely, then-French President Jacques Chirac showed up the morning of the vote, hardly spoke to any IOC members, didn't say a word during Paris' presentation, and then watched as London eked out 54-50 win.

Like Chirac, Obama will also show up on the morning of the vote, and it's hard to imagine how he'll meet with many IOC members. But unlike Chirac, Obama will speak in the presentation, and all Americans know what a huge advantage that can be. Reportedly, Vice President Joe Biden, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett have been on the phone with IOC Members. Michelle Obama and Jarrett will also meet with as many IOC Members as possible in the days leading up to the vote in Copenhagen, and its certainly plausible to think that President Obama has already had phone conversations with other members.

Obama traveling to Copenhagen was absolutely essential for the Chicago bid. After Blair's work for London and Vladimir Putin's successful lobbying for the Sochi 2014 Winter Bid, the other three bid cities planned to send heads of state and Obama's absence would have been noticed. That being said, the IOC is a fickle body that is wildly unpredictable. Its insistence on using a secret ballot means that members are not held accountable for their votes, and members can also change votes from round to round, causing quick and dramatic shifts in the race.

The favorite seldom wins in Olympic voting. Since the IOC split the summer and winter Olympic Games into separate years, the favorite has only won twice. Consider the following:

If you get TV One in your cable line-up, and if Ken Burns's National Parks is simultaneously making you dizzy with all that zooming in and out on old photos and just boring you to tears with the word-per-minute narrative, the soft fiddle music, and all that pious mishmash about nature and democracy....

I heartily recommend the new reality show Mario's Green House, in which actor Mario Van Peebles and his exceptionally photogenic and charming family (five children!) try to go green. It's fast, it's funny, and it's sort of a hipper, white-people-aren't-the-only-greens version of Ed Begley's Living With Ed. Which I actually love also, but while the Van Peebles clan does all the cool green-me-up stuff Ed does, they also talk to Van Jones about green jobs for inner-city teens, and they learn about how the poorest Americans live in the most toxic places and are the ones who need the greening initiatives the most.

Now that's democracy.

Plus Mario's dad, celebrated filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles, goes along on some of the adventures. How entirely not boring is that?