Scott Fawell, an aide who testified against former Gov. George Ryan, was convinced to cooperate with prosecutors by threats of longer prison time for Fawell’s girlfriend.

During an interview on WTTW-TV’s “Chicago Tonight” Fawell talked about the former governor, a fatal crash that fueled a licenses for bribes scandal and his romantic relationship with another Ryan staffer.

Fawell’s testimony against Ryan was largely responsible for a conviction and prison sentence on political corruption charges against the former governor. Fawell had already been convicted by the time Ryan’s trial was held and he refused to cooperate with prosecutors against his former boss — initially.

Prosecutors found the leverage they needed, when they threatened to seek a longer prison sentence against Fawell’s finance, Andrea Coutretsis — who also worked for Ryan. She eventually served four months in prison. She had earlier been facing 18 months.

Fawell spent about five years in prison was released in 2008. He still professes his admiration for Ryan. Fawell also is frustrated by his former friends who turned their backs on him after he gave federal officials information on them.

Fawell says neither he, nor Ryan, is complicit in a fiery crash that killed a minister’s children. A truck driver who had paid a bribe for his license caused that crash. The bribes were not directed from above, he said.

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill held a town hall meeting on health care reform in Hannibal on Monday, that differed greatly from the event held in Quincy by U.S. Rep. Phil Hare last week.

It appeared that McCaskill had a less contentious crowd, but the way the meeting was conducted tended to give that appearance.

When McCaskill asked how many people are “adamantly opposed to health care reform” a great many hands went up. There were a few audience members who wanted to interject comments or shout questions out to McCaskill, but she had set up a system that defused most of that.

McCaskill’s staff placed question sheets on each chair and questioners were required to place their names on the questions. McCaskill then got the questions and asked if that person was present. If nobody raised a hand, she went on to the next question. If the questioner raised a hand, she read the question and then responded.

When the first shouted questions came her way, McCaskill stopped and said “you’re not going to be rude are you” and explained that with written questions everyone has an equal chance to have their concerns addressed. There were only a few other shouts or comments at that meeting.

Hare, by contrast, got challenged by a loud critic before he had reached his seat. The same man shouted several comments at the end of the hour-long session.

Other questioners may have been less vocal at the Hare event, but every time someone made anything approaching a criticism of the House health care legislation got immediate applause and shouts of encouragement for the speaker.

McCaskill’s use of written questions gave less chance for those vocal shows of opposition.

She also used a rhetorical gimmick to catch her critics on the wrong side of their loud displays. McCaskill got loud applause and agreement when she said “Government is not good at a lot of things.”

Following up as the applause and cheers were coming, she said there are other things the government does very well. Then just as people said “no” and “boo” McCaskill sprung the trap. “What about the military? I think it’s the finest in the world.”

Those who were booing were forced to stop, or run the risk of appearing unpatriotic.

That’s a tactic McCaskill may have learned as a trial lawyer and prosecutor.

Despite the different styles used at the local gatherings, it is doubtful that anybody on either side of the health care debate was swayed. People who are engaged enough to go to a public information meeting generally have already decided whether they like the idea or hate it.

In addition, it is unlikely that McCaskill or Hare will be convinced that they should not overhaul health care or health insurance.

For the first time in 21 years, farmland values fell during 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The aggregate value of land, both improved and unimproved, was $2,100 an acre in January. That is down 3.2 percent from the previous year when it stood at $2,170. Average land values in what the USDA considers the Corn Belt were $3,620 an acre, down 2.2 percent.

After sharing that information, the USDA did not raise hopes for this year — citing forecasts that farm income will fall this year. The lower income had been expected, however, after corn and soybean prices were at record prices or near records through the middle of 2008.

Commodities such as corn, soybeans and oil have all plunged with the recession and the tight financial market. Those who had borrowed money to make leveraged futures trades in commodity markets have been unable to get the money from lenders — and those caught on the wrong side of the futures market last year may not have the desire to ever invest again, even if they could get loans.

The fall-off in farmland prices may not last long. Federal tax laws that allow people who sell property to avoid capital gains taxes if they buy other property are still driving the farmland market in the Tri-State region. And a whole new generation has learned the old saying that “land is a good investment, cause they’re not making any more of it.”