By DONNA EDWARDS, Associated Press

Look no further for great gift ideas for your kiddos. The Associated Press scoured the bookshelves for standout 2025 releases to share the love of reading with your child, student or friend, and came up with this list for the holidays.

Board books and read-to-me books (ages 0-3)

— “I Love You, Little Moose!” by Sandra Magsamen. A five-line poem about nature and all the things we love about it, with vibrant colors and bubble-letter text. This board book also has soft plushie antlers on top. Cartwheel Books, $8.99.

This cover image released by Cartwheel Books shows “I Love You, Little Moose!” by Sandra Magsamen. (Cartwheel Books via AP)

— “Why Does the Wind Blow?” by Eric Carle. Science made easy in classic Eric Carle style! This quick read explains in simple terms how wind blows, aided by illustrations and one Very Hungry Caterpillar. World of Eric Carle, $5.99.

This cover image released by The World of Eric Carle shows “Why Does the Wind Blow?: Weather with The Very Hungry Caterpillar.” (The World of Eric Carle via AP)

— “Little Heroes of Color: I’m A Little Hero” by David Heredia. Heroes range from hardworking Jim Thorpe to inventive Arvind Gupta to fearless Sonia Sotomayor. Rhyming and repetition make complicated words and ideas easier to understand. In the back, readers will find a mirror with a message that they’re a little hero, too. Cartwheel Books, $9.99.

— “Everywhere You Are” by Victoria Monét, illustrated by Alea Marley. This sweet book reaffirms a parent’s love for their child even when they’re not physically together. Grammy winner Monét’s musicality shines in this lullaby, illustrated in a colorful, swirly, star-speckled outer space. G.P. Putnam’s Sons Books For Young Readers, $18.99.

This cover image released by G.P. Putnam’s Sons Books for Young Readers shows “Everywhere You Are” by Victoria Monet, with art by Alea Marley. (G.P. Putnam’s Sons Books for Young Readers via AP)

Early readers (ages 3-8)

— “Bitty and Bub, Best Buds” by Janee Trasler. Five short, silly comics follow fun-loving friends Bitty and Bub. It’s a great introduction to reading comics, using speech bubbles in simple panel progressions. Holiday House, $14.99.

This cover image released by Holiday House shows “Bitty and Bub, Best Buds” by Janee Trasler. (Holiday House via AP)

— “Don’t Trust Fish” by Neil Sharpson, illustrated by Dan Santat. Why read another boring animal book when you can read something hilarious? The book teaches kids how to recognize mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds — and, chiefly, why you shouldn’t trust fish. Dial Books, $18.99.

— “Grandmother Moon” by Wunneanatsu Lamb-Cason, illustrated by Trisha B. Waters. A girl’s grandma explains Grandmother Moon to her. The author’s Indigenous storytelling tradition is extended by dreamy full-page paintings. Includes a Moon Calendar and a guide to reading the calendar on the scales of Turtle’s back. Beaming Books, $18.99.

This cover image released by Beaming Books shows “Grandmother Moon” by Wunneanatsu Lamb-Cason, illustrated by Trisha B. Waters. (Beaming Books via AP)

Middle grade (ages 8-12)

— “Dory Fantasmagory 7: Center of the Universe” by Abby Hanlon. Book 7 in the silly illustrated series that’s a perfect bridge into chapter books. In this story, Dory has a new rival. Dory’s zany antics and odd friends could elicit laughter from any reader. Dial Books, $17.99.

This cover image released by Dial Books shows “Dory Fantasmagory 7: Center of the Universe” by Abby Hanlon. (Dial Books via AP)

— “Maker Girl and Professor Smarts” by Jasmine Florentine. So what if they don’t have superpowers? These supersmart best friends are ready to take on supervillains! This hilarious, hybrid graphic chapter book includes science-backed instructions for making sorbet and cardboard grappling hooks. MIT Kids Press, $19.99.

This cover image released by MIT Kids Press/Candlewick Press shows “Maker Girl and Professor Smarts” by Jasmine Florentine. (MIT Kids Press/Candlewick Press via AP)

— “The Weirdies” by Michael Buckley, illustrated by Forrest Burdett. From the creator of “Sisters Grimm,” these 10-year-old triplets and the world they live in are weird — and highly entertaining. Pencil-hatching illustrations accompany Lemony Snicket-esque humor and fourth-wall breaking. Little, Brown Books for Young Readers, $14.99.

This cover image released by Little Brown Books for Young Readers shows “The Weirdies” by Michael Buckley, illustrated by Forrest Burdett. (Little Brown Books for Young Readers via AP)

— “The Poisoned King” by Katherine Rundell, illustrated by Ashley Mackenzie. It’s up to 12-year-old Princess Anya to save the dragons and her kingdom. The hotly anticipated Book 2 of the Impossible Creatures series is a fantasy adventure driven by an unyielding belief in the power of goodness. Knopf Books for Young Readers, $19.99.

This cover image released by Alfred A. Knopf Books for Young Readers shows“The Poisoned King” by Katherine Rundell, illustrated by Ashley Mackenzie. (Alfred A. Knopf Books for Young Readers via AP)

— “Bunns Rabbit” by Alan Barillaro. The other rabbits fear that Bunns’ short ears are a bad omen. Full of heart, this mature, tender chapter book showcases descriptive writing and stunning, dramatically lit illustrations. Candlewick, $18.99.

This cover image released by Candlewick Press shows “Bunns Rabbit” by Alan Barillaro. (Candlewick Press via AP)

Young adult (ages 12+)

— “The Story of My Anger” by Jasminne Mendez. Told in verse and as a play, this empowering story follows Yuli, a junior at a Texas high school, as she learns how to handle racism, the pressure to shine, and stress at home with a widowed mom living with a chronic illness. Dial Books, $19.99.

This cover image released by Dial Books shows “The Story of My Anger” by Jasminne Mendez. (Dial Books via AP)

— “The House of Quiet” by Kiersten White. A Gothic mystery that explores class struggle and what it means to make a positive impact in the world. The stunning ending pulls the pieces together without a single detail wasted. Delacorte Press, $19.99.

This cover image released by Random House Children’s Books shows “The House of Quiet” by Kiersten White. (Random House Children’s Books via AP)

— “When We Were Monsters” by Jennifer Niven. Arlo and Effy trade off narrating this genre-bender of dark academia, murder mystery, thriller and romance. A “Frankenstein” motif throughout the novel conveys themes of monsters and fate vs. free will. Knopf Books for Young Readers, $20.99.

This cover image released by Knopf Books for Young Readers shows “When We Were Monsters” by Jennifer Niven. (Knopf Books for Young Readers via AP)

— “Leave It on the Track” by Margot Fisher. After her dads die in a fire, Moose moves to a new state to live with her older half-sister, who convinces her to try roller derby. Fisher’s debut grabs you and doesn’t let go, tackling grief, being LGBTQ+ and finding community. Dutton Books for Young Readers, $19.99.

This cover image released by Dutton Books for Young Readers shows “Leave It on the Track” by Margot Fisher. (Dutton Books for Young Readers via AP)

— “Take Up Space, Y’all” by Tess Holliday and Kelly Coon. A body positivity book with guides and tips, from finding your fashion to having a healthy relationship with food to dealing with labels. It always defers to consulting your doctor for medical needs like skin problems and mental health challenges. Running Press Kids, $13.99.

— “I Wish I Didn’t Have to Tell You This: A Graphic Memoir” by Eugene Yelchin. The sequel to “The Genius Under the Table” also stands on its own, chronicling a Jewish man’s escape from Soviet Russia in the 1980s with a unique art style that incorporates photographs. Yelchin’s mom and grandmother provide comic relief with their melodrama and uncanny wisdom. Candlewick, $22.99.

Why walk when you can run? The second Stephen King adaptation about a contest to the death for a large cash prize has hit theaters this fall — Edgar Wright’s take on “The Running Man,” which was published in 1982 under King’s pen name Richard Bachman. Also included in the 1985 collection “The Bachman Books” is “The Long Walk,” about a group of teenage boys taking part in a televised walk or die competition. That grim film adaptation, directed by Francis Lawrence, of “The Hunger Games,” debuted in September, but hot on their heels comes our man on the run, breathless, brutal and bloody.

It’s in fact his second lap. In 1987, Paul Michael Glaser directed a version of this dystopian media satire starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, set in 2017, but Wright’s version, written with Michael Bacall, and set in 2025 (as the book is), hews much closer to the novel than Glaser’s film. A beefed-up Glen Powell plays Ben Richards, a desperate man who has been blacklisted from his job after informing a union rep about radiation exposure in his workplace, and now has no choice but to audition for a dangerous game show while trying to protect and provide for his wife (Jayme Lawson) and sick daughter, Cathy.

The most popular program of the state-run media, “The Running Man” TV show is produced by devious executive Killian (Josh Brolin) and hosted by smarmy showman Bobby T (Colman Domingo). The contest is a 30-day affair in which three contestants have to try to outrun, outlast and evade a team of murderous Hunters, led by the masked McCone (Lee Pace).

They become enemies of the state, with citizens encouraged to report any sightings, hunted on all sides while mailing videotapes every day. While his compatriots, the hedonistic Laughlin (Katy O’Brian, Powell’s former “Twisters” teammate) and hapless Jansky (Martin Herlihy) are obvious chum, Ben’s physical skills, honed on the job, and righteous anger, instilled in him by the injustices of the fascist authoritarian government the Network, make him an ideal candidate for “The Running Man.” Ben is mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore.

Let’s be honest: it is deeply ironic that Wright’s “The Running Man” is among the first of Paramount’s high-profile film releases under the ownership of David Ellison, the scion of a tech billionaire who embraces right-wing politics and is seeking to create his own media monopoly, contemplating a purchase of Warner Bros. too. Wright and Bacall’s script is utterly savage in its critique of a fascist state media that turns broadcast bloodshed into propaganda in order to keep poor people at each other’s throats and away from the guillotine. The messaging isn’t subtle or even nuanced as it illustrates how these exploitative game shows disrupt class solidarity by villainizing participants, and that the other television offerings, like a Kardashians-style show called “The Americanos” is an opiate for the masses that only leaves them wanting more.

From storytelling to style, “The Running Man” delivers with a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. Both Wright and Powell are grittier, meaner, more unhinged than we’ve seen from a filmmaker and star known for their cheeky charm. At times it does feel as though both are posturing at toughness, teeth bared, but it’s fun to see them go just a little mad sometimes.

For Powell’s Ben, his motivations are rooted in family, which is more emotional than Schwarzenegger’s performance, and more suited to Powell’s natural screen abilities — he’s less murdering machine than Schwarzenegger, more (shockingly ripped) sad dad. Ben might be a little slow on his awakening about how he’s being manipulated in the game, but he figures it out soon enough.

Wright’s own agenda is made manifest with every helper that Ben finds along his journey — from an old friend (William H. Macy), who helps him gear up for the quest, to an underground activist in Boston, to a radical organizer in Maine (Michael Cera) — Wright makes an argument for the importance of physical media, an offline technology that doesn’t “watch you back” in the Network’s surveillance state, and for media literacy, to understand the video manipulation that the Network engages in to misrepresent the contestants on “The Running Man.” Their tools of liberation are public access TV shows, VHS tapes and photocopied zines.

Wright makes the argument that in such a dystopian, fascist state, there are only a few things that will save us: class solidarity, physical media and literacy. It’s a powerful and potent message that cuts through any and all of the bombastic busyness of “The Running Man.” The only question that remains is: has David Ellison watched the movie his studio is releasing? It could be vastly illuminating.

‘The Running Man’

3 stars (out of 4)

MPA rating: R (for strong violence, some gore, and language)

Running time: 2:13

How to watch: In theaters Nov. 14

Related Articles

Review: ‘Stumble,’ NBC’s cheerleader mockumentary, gives you something to root for

Movie review: Russell Crowe and Rami Malek face off in the Nazi trial drama ‘Nuremberg’

Movie review: Lynne Ramsay’s ‘Die My Love’ a primal scream of maternal rage

Diane Ladd, 3-time Oscar nominee, dies at 89

Movie review: ‘Anniversary’ a character study of creeping fascism

Amy Lindgren

Job searching can be challenging no matter what your circumstances may be, but those caring for aging parents have a double challenge. In addition to conducting the search itself, they must also identify employers and roles to support the delicate balance between work and caretaking – all while continuing to help their parents.

That’s a lot. Unfortunately for these individuals, more might be coming as we enter the holiday season. Professionals in geriatric services tell us that issues related to older family members will often surface during the holidays, particularly if those elders live on their own.

That’s when adult children may notice that their parents’ struggles go beyond needing a hand with medical appointments or financial matters. Suddenly, what sounded like fatigue on the phone may look like downright frailty in person. All at once, the question arises in whispered conversations, “Is Mom all right to stay here on her own?”

I’ve described this situation in columns from previous years, but with some of our safety nets in danger, the topic is sadly timely again. When government services and nonprofit budgets are curtailed, more elder care falls to the family. More specifically, those duties are likely to land partly or fully on family members who don’t have jobs.

If you are one of these unemployed caretakers, you may have mixed emotions about the situation. On the one hand, it’s good that you have the time to help your parents, but on the other hand, is it possible that doing so is hurting your prospects for finding a job?

Yes, it is possible. While adult children in this position often describe caretaking as a privilege, the process can still exact a heavy toll, particularly for an unemployed worker whose job search is affected.

Here are some of the effects on adult children when the issues of unemployment and elder care collide:

— Uncertainty in choosing a new career. If your parent needs help, should you really take work that requires travel, or extra hours? In some cases, saying no to these options means turning down career-building pathways in favor of work that is easier to flex.

— A sense of obligation to live and work near the parent. As things get more intense, it’s not uncommon for adult children to move closer or even share housing with their parents. This can close off some job opportunities that are site-specific.

— Difficulty staying focused. Gaining job search momentum can feel impossible when the day is punctuated with caretaking duties. Caretakers can feel more like on-call assistants than job seekers, and the productivity of the search reflects that reality.

The following tips may not be very comprehensive in light of such a complex situation, but if you are an adult caretaker who needs to complete a job search, they may help.

1. Don’t assume you’re the best or only person to help. Yes, you may be conveniently unemployed right now, but how is that a qualification? Ask yourself: If I were working full time, or living far away, how would I deal with this?

2. List all possible sources of help, including other family members. Too often, the sibling who is nearest – or the one without a job – is the one expected to step in. This person may even move in with the elderly parent, prompting other siblings to reason, “Well, free rent is a good exchange for helping Dad.” If this is happening to you, remember that you’ll get the most help if you ask for it.

3. Think realistically about your own limits. How many hours a week can you take away from job search? Or, how many hours is your personal limit? Once you have that number, focus on problem-solving to fill in the gaps in the care your parents need.

4. Consider dropping a job search altogether for now. Of course you can’t afford that. But if the effective result of not focusing on your search will be a year of unemployment, how is that different from deciding to step out for the year to focus on your parents?

That’s not meant to sound harsh, by the way, but to give you courage: You do have some control in this situation, little as it may seem. Remember that as much as you love your parents and want to help them, they love you too and don’t want to see you suffer from providing that help. Find the middle ground between doing nothing and doing everything, and you’ll likely survive this period with both your family and career intact.

Amy Lindgren owns a career consulting firm in St. Paul. She can be reached at alindgren@prototypecareerservice.com.

Related Articles

Working Strategies: The things you need for networking post-60

Working Strategies: Job search outreach: Don’t call it ‘networking’

Working Strategies: Job search best practices require discipline

Working Strategies: Customize cover letters, but there are shortcuts

Working Strategies: Job search over 60: “purpose” vs. paycheck

Edward Lotterman

The movie “Network” is 50 years old, but the iconic sentiment, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” is common. Households and sole-proprietor businesses like farmers see price-fixing and similar collusion all around them. They are “mad as hell,” but it is up to Congress if they will “have to take it.”

Despite President Donald Trump’s assertions that grocery prices are down, the last consumer price index showed that “food eaten at home is up 1.6%” since he took office and 5.5% over a year earlier. Turkey is up 25% over the last year. “Meat, fish and poultry” is up 5.2% from a year ago, with 2.2% of that between Inauguration Day and September.

Ground beef, a mainstay for many, was up 11.5% over 12 months and 14% since January. No, that’s not a mistake. The price fell from September to January but then bounced back up. Thus many consumers are mad as hell.

So farmers also are angry. Despite Trump saying the Chinese had promised to buy 12 million tons of soybeans this year, none have moved. Yet prices of inputs for 2026, especially fertilizer, are high relative to prospective crop prices.

Beef is one bright sector. Slaughter cattle prices are near record highs. Breeding herds are recovering after shrinking numbers during a decade of drought. But operations fattening cattle say that the gap between what they receive from packing plants and what consumers pay is widening further.

Members of Congress from farm states listen to their constituents. There are hearings on why fertilizer prices are so high. Others question why meat packers, both for beef and pork, seem to have growing market power allowing them to grab a larger share of profits. Members of key committees are speaking out and introducing legislation to fix problems.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is a key one speaking up on both issues. With a farm background, he has represented Iowa in Congress for a half-century following 16 years in the Iowa Legislature. Thus, when he challenges monopolistic abuses that raise farm input costs and lower farm product prices, he speaks from some authority. But in his condemnations, he misses a key variable – what Congress has done in the decades Grassley himself has been in Washington. That is nearly nothing.

Grassley’s degrees, a B.A., M.A. and most of a Ph.D., all are in political science. So he probably never learned a key incident in Spanish history that fits him and his congressional colleagues to a tee.

Islamic Moors occupied Spain for centuries, but were driven out in the 1400s. In 1492, they gave up their last holdout, the city of Granada and its stunningly beautiful Alhambra palace. As the surrendering Moorish king rode away, he looked back and shed a tear at what was lost. His harsh mother was pitiless: “You do well to weep like a woman for what you would not defend like a man!”

That is precisely what Congress needs to hear now. Why stage great street theater about monopolies raising meat and fertilizer prices in 2025 when successive Congresses and presidents did nothing to stop their growth since the early 1980s? In 1980, the biggest four beef packers had 38% of the total market. By 2020, it was 82%. Yet history shows it is easier to prevent monopolies from being created than to break them up after they become entrenched.

Moreover, while both parties have blame, in recent decades the GOP has been far more cozy with monopoly power than the Democrats. This is a shame, given that antitrust was a central issue for the Republican Party before World War I. Teddy Roosevelt was the greatest “trust buster” of all time. After Abraham Lincoln, Teddy was the greatest GOP president ever. He dared to call out “malefactors of great wealth,” something no one in either party will do today.

To better understand all this, review some basic microeconomics.

“Perfect competition” has many small producers, none of whom have any power to set prices. Every seller is a price taker in a market with many buyers.

Monopoly is the opposite. There is only one producer who, facing no competition, sets prices wherever they want. They choose a quantity and price giving the greatest profit. That is visible to disadvantaged buyers right now, whether purchasing beef roasts or ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

Abusively high prices are not the only problem. The quantity of output produced is smaller than what is optimal for society as a whole. Resources are used inefficiently. Greater quantities of resources are used up to produce one unit of product than would be in a competitive market. Finally, monopolies foster less innovation. Without the stimulus of having to compete with other producers, there is little reason to look for ways to do things better.

Understand there are few real-world examples of perfect competition and few of pure monopoly. At the first end, there is “monopolistic competition” in which some but not all of the conditions for pure competition exist. At the other, there is oligopoly. Just as “oligarchy” is rule by a few people instead of one person in a monarchy, so oligopoly is a market with only a few producers who compete little.

Most large sectors – airliners, steel, automobiles, motor fuels, locomotives, chemicals – are oligopolies. So are meats and several other food categories. So are fertilizer, seeds and farm chemicals.

When there are only a few producers, the danger for society is that these combine, agreeing to conduct their business as if they jointly are a monopoly. Such collusion is what angry senators are investigating right now. It is what Teddy Roosevelt fought 120 years ago. It was the heart of the 1903 Northern Securities Co. decision from the Supreme Court that broke up a three-railroad “trust” put together by St. Paul’s own James J. Hill.

Curbing monopoly power long was important to Republicans. Richard Nixon saw it was time to break up the regulated monopolies in telecommunications. His Democratic successor, Jimmy Carter, did the same for airlines, railroads and trucking, reforms that were finished by Republican Ronald Reagan.

But that changed with the new century. Democrat Bill Clinton’s Justice Department saw anti-competitive practices by Microsoft. It filed suit to break Microsoft into two companies – one for operating systems and another for applications, just as Standard Oil and International Harvester had been broken up a century earlier. In 2000, the government was clearly winning the case in court, but as soon as George W. Bush was inaugurated, the case was dropped.

That was the turn of the tide of any GOP antitrust action. With the 2010 Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court that legalized payoffs to politicians, anti-competitive collusion and price-fixing was given a free hand. Congress has stood by. They can hold all the hearings they want and pass all the bills calling for further study they want. But unless the president in the Oval Office and majorities in the House and Senate agree to promote competition, citizens should not expect much.

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at stpaul@edlotterman.com.