Bruce Springsteen - The Streets of Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born to Run His Mouth

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/born-to-run-his-mouth-d0da2a4a?st=xrPebu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Paywall. What’s the hot take? That entertainers should simply entertain and shut up?

That should be a gift link.

Requires signup. TLR?

The best thing Bruce Springsteen ever did was admit he was a phoney.
It was a late-career reveal that endeared him to me—a fan grown weary of his aggressive partisanship.

In his 2016 autobiography, Mr. Springsteen confessed that he wasn’t the working class hero he’d always pretended to be. That blue-collar persona was borrowed from his father, who, in Mr. Springsteen’s telling, was a complicated and difficult man.

My sense is that Mr. Springsteen likes complicated and difficult men. His songs are filled with them. Screw-ups who can’t get their lives on track. Men crippled by heartbreak or haunted by demons, for whom daily survival is hard work. He loves those guys.

What he doesn’t love is anyone who disagrees with him politically.

On Wednesday, Mr. Springsteen released a new song, “The Streets of Minneapolis.” As the title suggests, it was recorded in a hurry and aimed at the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. You won’t be the least bit surprised by the undercooked lyrics or the overcooked delivery.

Mr. Springsteen’s disdain for Republicans predates MAGA. He called George W. Bush and Dick Cheney monsters. He accused them of torturing the Constitution and blackening the soul of America—“a generous nation,” as he wrote in a letter endorsing Barack Obama in 2008, “with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems.”

The thing about generosity is that it isn’t really generosity if it doesn’t extend to those with whom you disagree. Same for empathy. Same for nuance.

I think most Americans accept that immigration is a complex problem. We don’t want to break up families and ruin lives. But we do need to have a border, and we do need to have laws. If there were an easy solution we’d have cracked it by now.

Of course, Mr. Springsteen thinks there is an easy solution: Let ’em in and leave ’em alone. That’s a point of view, and he’s welcome to it. He’s also welcome to acknowledge that his wealth and fame insulate him from the consequences of an open border. He never does.

In a different world, the ICE and Border Patrol agents involved in the Minneapolis shootings might make sympathetic subjects for a Springsteen song. They are working-class guys, probably. Military veterans, in some cases. They may have gone to college, though probably not to Yale.

Mr. Springsteen won’t agree, but I’d guess most of them joined ICE or Border Patrol for the right reasons—that is, out of a genuine desire to serve.

They may have been poorly trained. They may have made mistakes under impossible pressure. No way did they wake up expecting to kill someone that day. In fact, I’d bet they’re heartbroken about the deaths of Pretti and Good.

But to believe that you’d have to believe in complexity and nuance.

Mr. Springsteen prefers the comfort of his anger. He’d rather have the moral certainty of blind loyalty to partisan absolutes. Those agents aren’t real people to him. They aren’t veterans and patriots. They aren’t fathers, husbands and sons.

No, they’re “federal thugs.” They’re “King Trump’s private army.”

Strange that a guy so adept at painting colorful portraits of complex and difficult men would be content to work only with black and white. I liked him better when he knew he was a phony.

Yeah, that’s a hot take alright. Should I write an article about how this slop is exactly the sort of disingenuous crap I’d expect in the WSJ and how I preferred it when they stayed in their lane?

Stay angry, Bruce.

They're sharing crappy WSJ OPINION pieces because they can't even come up with something on their own. I'd encourage the prior poster to say what's wrong about him releasing this song in their own words. (NO AI! - )

What AI? I'm the poster who shared the WSJ piece and I stand by it. You know we're allowed to agree with other people and share their opinions... right? You people constantly do, with your imbecilic Bluesky reposts from people no one's ever heard of.

I don't care if Bruce decided to write what is clearly a mediocre (and that's being generous) song in a hurry. But you're crazy if you think no one should be allowed to comment on it unless they're swooning and fawning. The song itself is awful and embarrassing, and I have no issue saying so. You disagree. Who cares?

It's okay. You can go listen to one of Nicki Minaj's collab and pretend that it's good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born to Run His Mouth

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/born-to-run-his-mouth-d0da2a4a?st=xrPebu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Paywall. What’s the hot take? That entertainers should simply entertain and shut up?

That should be a gift link.

Requires signup. TLR?

The best thing Bruce Springsteen ever did was admit he was a phoney.
It was a late-career reveal that endeared him to me—a fan grown weary of his aggressive partisanship.

In his 2016 autobiography, Mr. Springsteen confessed that he wasn’t the working class hero he’d always pretended to be. That blue-collar persona was borrowed from his father, who, in Mr. Springsteen’s telling, was a complicated and difficult man.

My sense is that Mr. Springsteen likes complicated and difficult men. His songs are filled with them. Screw-ups who can’t get their lives on track. Men crippled by heartbreak or haunted by demons, for whom daily survival is hard work. He loves those guys.

What he doesn’t love is anyone who disagrees with him politically.

On Wednesday, Mr. Springsteen released a new song, “The Streets of Minneapolis.” As the title suggests, it was recorded in a hurry and aimed at the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. You won’t be the least bit surprised by the undercooked lyrics or the overcooked delivery.

Mr. Springsteen’s disdain for Republicans predates MAGA. He called George W. Bush and Dick Cheney monsters. He accused them of torturing the Constitution and blackening the soul of America—“a generous nation,” as he wrote in a letter endorsing Barack Obama in 2008, “with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems.”

The thing about generosity is that it isn’t really generosity if it doesn’t extend to those with whom you disagree. Same for empathy. Same for nuance.

I think most Americans accept that immigration is a complex problem. We don’t want to break up families and ruin lives. But we do need to have a border, and we do need to have laws. If there were an easy solution we’d have cracked it by now.

Of course, Mr. Springsteen thinks there is an easy solution: Let ’em in and leave ’em alone. That’s a point of view, and he’s welcome to it. He’s also welcome to acknowledge that his wealth and fame insulate him from the consequences of an open border. He never does.

In a different world, the ICE and Border Patrol agents involved in the Minneapolis shootings might make sympathetic subjects for a Springsteen song. They are working-class guys, probably. Military veterans, in some cases. They may have gone to college, though probably not to Yale.

Mr. Springsteen won’t agree, but I’d guess most of them joined ICE or Border Patrol for the right reasons—that is, out of a genuine desire to serve.

They may have been poorly trained. They may have made mistakes under impossible pressure. No way did they wake up expecting to kill someone that day. In fact, I’d bet they’re heartbroken about the deaths of Pretti and Good.

But to believe that you’d have to believe in complexity and nuance.

Mr. Springsteen prefers the comfort of his anger. He’d rather have the moral certainty of blind loyalty to partisan absolutes. Those agents aren’t real people to him. They aren’t veterans and patriots. They aren’t fathers, husbands and sons.

No, they’re “federal thugs.” They’re “King Trump’s private army.”

Strange that a guy so adept at painting colorful portraits of complex and difficult men would be content to work only with black and white. I liked him better when he knew he was a phony.

Yeah, that’s a hot take alright. Should I write an article about how this slop is exactly the sort of disingenuous crap I’d expect in the WSJ and how I preferred it when they stayed in their lane?

Stay angry, Bruce.

They're sharing crappy WSJ OPINION pieces because they can't even come up with something on their own. I'd encourage the prior poster to say what's wrong about him releasing this song in their own words. (NO AI! - )

What AI? I'm the poster who shared the WSJ piece and I stand by it. You know we're allowed to agree with other people and share their opinions... right? You people constantly do, with your imbecilic Bluesky reposts from people no one's ever heard of.

I don't care if Bruce decided to write what is clearly a mediocre (and that's being generous) song in a hurry. But you're crazy if you think no one should be allowed to comment on it unless they're swooning and fawning. The song itself is awful and embarrassing, and I have no issue saying so. You disagree. Who cares?

It's okay. You can go listen to one of Nicki Minaj's collab and pretend that it's good.

Ah Nicki

Talk about someone who shot herself in tbe foot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind the guy lives on a 400 acre ranch. And at 76 he's probably not doing the dirty work himself.

He's out there making sure he will always have a steady supply of under-the-table labor.

You better come with receipts if you’re going to make a claim like that. He came from nothing, unlike your boys Santa Monica Miller and Silver Spoon Trump.

He’s a zillionaire who wants everybody to think he’s still a working man. He’s a fraud.

When a Trump supporter demeans someone because they're rich, you've reached peak cognitive dissonance.

And Springsteen didn't grow up wealthy, so he has the cred.

[Anonymous]

Musically, this song is utter crap.

Bits like “guns belted to their coats” sound like LLM slop - the juxtaposition of tokens may seem vaguely reasonable, but in the broader context of a world full of objects and actions, it’s just nonsense. You don’t “belt” a gun to anything, let alone a coat. You can put a gun ON your belt, or a belt on a coat (but not a GUN belt on a coat) or a gun on a sling, and sling over your coat…. You get the idea.

This song is LAZY and BAD and it’s sad to see the Boss, or anyone else, pretending otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Musically, this song is utter crap.

Bits like “guns belted to their coats” sound like LLM slop - the juxtaposition of tokens may seem vaguely reasonable, but in the broader context of a world full of objects and actions, it’s just nonsense. You don’t “belt” a gun to anything, let alone a coat. You can put a gun ON your belt, or a belt on a coat (but not a GUN belt on a coat) or a gun on a sling, and sling over your coat…. You get the idea.

This song is LAZY and BAD and it’s sad to see the Boss, or anyone else, pretending otherwise.

The Billboard Pop critic arrived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musically, this song is utter crap.

Bits like “guns belted to their coats” sound like LLM slop - the juxtaposition of tokens may seem vaguely reasonable, but in the broader context of a world full of objects and actions, it’s just nonsense. You don’t “belt” a gun to anything, let alone a coat. You can put a gun ON your belt, or a belt on a coat (but not a GUN belt on a coat) or a gun on a sling, and sling over your coat…. You get the idea.

This song is LAZY and BAD and it’s sad to see the Boss, or anyone else, pretending otherwise.

The Billboard Pop critic arrived.

SLOP critic

Hi y’all!

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's a technically great song. It's powerful, but it's awkward and sort of jammed together. That being said, the intent and emotion is powerful.

He released it in something like three days -- that's from reaction, composition, recording, through to editing and release. It's a product of that short process.

I don't doubt that this will be played a lot. I expect he'll refine and rerelease it at some point. People will remember it, and they will remember Good, Pretti, and ICE's role in those deaths. That was the goal, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think it's a technically great song. It's powerful, but it's awkward and sort of jammed together. That being said, the intent and emotion is powerful.

He released it in something like three days -- that's from reaction, composition, recording, through to editing and release. It's a product of that short process.

I don't doubt that this will be played a lot. I expect he'll refine and rerelease it at some point. People will remember it, and they will remember Good, Pretti, and ICE's role in those deaths. That was the goal, I think.

I wish the bluesky links would preview - that's what I was trying to get across in the OP. This isn't supposed to be some well crafted masterpiece of a song. It's the message that matters.

I wrote this song on Saturday, recorded it yesterday and released it to you today in response to the state terror being visited on the city of Minneapolis. It’s dedicated to the people of Minneapolis, our innocent immigrant neighbors and in memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.

Stay free

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born to Run His Mouth

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/born-to-run-his-mouth-d0da2a4a?st=xrPebu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Paywall. What’s the hot take? That entertainers should simply entertain and shut up?

That should be a gift link.

Requires signup. TLR?

The best thing Bruce Springsteen ever did was admit he was a phoney.
It was a late-career reveal that endeared him to me—a fan grown weary of his aggressive partisanship.

In his 2016 autobiography, Mr. Springsteen confessed that he wasn’t the working class hero he’d always pretended to be. That blue-collar persona was borrowed from his father, who, in Mr. Springsteen’s telling, was a complicated and difficult man.

My sense is that Mr. Springsteen likes complicated and difficult men. His songs are filled with them. Screw-ups who can’t get their lives on track. Men crippled by heartbreak or haunted by demons, for whom daily survival is hard work. He loves those guys.

What he doesn’t love is anyone who disagrees with him politically.

On Wednesday, Mr. Springsteen released a new song, “The Streets of Minneapolis.” As the title suggests, it was recorded in a hurry and aimed at the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. You won’t be the least bit surprised by the undercooked lyrics or the overcooked delivery.

Mr. Springsteen’s disdain for Republicans predates MAGA. He called George W. Bush and Dick Cheney monsters. He accused them of torturing the Constitution and blackening the soul of America—“a generous nation,” as he wrote in a letter endorsing Barack Obama in 2008, “with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems.”

The thing about generosity is that it isn’t really generosity if it doesn’t extend to those with whom you disagree. Same for empathy. Same for nuance.

I think most Americans accept that immigration is a complex problem. We don’t want to break up families and ruin lives. But we do need to have a border, and we do need to have laws. If there were an easy solution we’d have cracked it by now.

Of course, Mr. Springsteen thinks there is an easy solution: Let ’em in and leave ’em alone. That’s a point of view, and he’s welcome to it. He’s also welcome to acknowledge that his wealth and fame insulate him from the consequences of an open border. He never does.

In a different world, the ICE and Border Patrol agents involved in the Minneapolis shootings might make sympathetic subjects for a Springsteen song. They are working-class guys, probably. Military veterans, in some cases. They may have gone to college, though probably not to Yale.

Mr. Springsteen won’t agree, but I’d guess most of them joined ICE or Border Patrol for the right reasons—that is, out of a genuine desire to serve.

They may have been poorly trained. They may have made mistakes under impossible pressure. No way did they wake up expecting to kill someone that day. In fact, I’d bet they’re heartbroken about the deaths of Pretti and Good.

But to believe that you’d have to believe in complexity and nuance.

Mr. Springsteen prefers the comfort of his anger. He’d rather have the moral certainty of blind loyalty to partisan absolutes. Those agents aren’t real people to him. They aren’t veterans and patriots. They aren’t fathers, husbands and sons.

No, they’re “federal thugs.” They’re “King Trump’s private army.”

Strange that a guy so adept at painting colorful portraits of complex and difficult men would be content to work only with black and white. I liked him better when he knew he was a phony.

Yeah, that’s a hot take alright. Should I write an article about how this slop is exactly the sort of disingenuous crap I’d expect in the WSJ and how I preferred it when they stayed in their lane?

Stay angry, Bruce.

They're sharing crappy WSJ OPINION pieces because they can't even come up with something on their own. I'd encourage the prior poster to say what's wrong about him releasing this song in their own words. (NO AI! - )

What AI? I'm the poster who shared the WSJ piece and I stand by it. You know we're allowed to agree with other people and share their opinions... right? You people constantly do, with your imbecilic Bluesky reposts from people no one's ever heard of.

I don't care if Bruce decided to write what is clearly a mediocre (and that's being generous) song in a hurry. But you're crazy if you think no one should be allowed to comment on it unless they're swooning and fawning. The song itself is awful and embarrassing, and I have no issue saying so. You disagree. Who cares?

It's okay. You can go listen to one of Nicki Minaj's collab and pretend that it's good.

Ah Nicki

Talk about someone who shot herself in tbe foot

I love her picture among all the white maga males who did not know her or her music before yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born to Run His Mouth

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/born-to-run-his-mouth-d0da2a4a?st=xrPebu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Paywall. What’s the hot take? That entertainers should simply entertain and shut up?

That should be a gift link.

Requires signup. TLR?

The best thing Bruce Springsteen ever did was admit he was a phoney.
It was a late-career reveal that endeared him to me—a fan grown weary of his aggressive partisanship.

In his 2016 autobiography, Mr. Springsteen confessed that he wasn’t the working class hero he’d always pretended to be. That blue-collar persona was borrowed from his father, who, in Mr. Springsteen’s telling, was a complicated and difficult man.

My sense is that Mr. Springsteen likes complicated and difficult men. His songs are filled with them. Screw-ups who can’t get their lives on track. Men crippled by heartbreak or haunted by demons, for whom daily survival is hard work. He loves those guys.

What he doesn’t love is anyone who disagrees with him politically.

On Wednesday, Mr. Springsteen released a new song, “The Streets of Minneapolis.” As the title suggests, it was recorded in a hurry and aimed at the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. You won’t be the least bit surprised by the undercooked lyrics or the overcooked delivery.

Mr. Springsteen’s disdain for Republicans predates MAGA. He called George W. Bush and Dick Cheney monsters. He accused them of torturing the Constitution and blackening the soul of America—“a generous nation,” as he wrote in a letter endorsing Barack Obama in 2008, “with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems.”

The thing about generosity is that it isn’t really generosity if it doesn’t extend to those with whom you disagree. Same for empathy. Same for nuance.

I think most Americans accept that immigration is a complex problem. We don’t want to break up families and ruin lives. But we do need to have a border, and we do need to have laws. If there were an easy solution we’d have cracked it by now.

Of course, Mr. Springsteen thinks there is an easy solution: Let ’em in and leave ’em alone. That’s a point of view, and he’s welcome to it. He’s also welcome to acknowledge that his wealth and fame insulate him from the consequences of an open border. He never does.

In a different world, the ICE and Border Patrol agents involved in the Minneapolis shootings might make sympathetic subjects for a Springsteen song. They are working-class guys, probably. Military veterans, in some cases. They may have gone to college, though probably not to Yale.

Mr. Springsteen won’t agree, but I’d guess most of them joined ICE or Border Patrol for the right reasons—that is, out of a genuine desire to serve.

They may have been poorly trained. They may have made mistakes under impossible pressure. No way did they wake up expecting to kill someone that day. In fact, I’d bet they’re heartbroken about the deaths of Pretti and Good.

But to believe that you’d have to believe in complexity and nuance.

Mr. Springsteen prefers the comfort of his anger. He’d rather have the moral certainty of blind loyalty to partisan absolutes. Those agents aren’t real people to him. They aren’t veterans and patriots. They aren’t fathers, husbands and sons.

No, they’re “federal thugs.” They’re “King Trump’s private army.”

Strange that a guy so adept at painting colorful portraits of complex and difficult men would be content to work only with black and white. I liked him better when he knew he was a phony.

Yeah, that’s a hot take alright. Should I write an article about how this slop is exactly the sort of disingenuous crap I’d expect in the WSJ and how I preferred it when they stayed in their lane?

Stay angry, Bruce.

They're sharing crappy WSJ OPINION pieces because they can't even come up with something on their own. I'd encourage the prior poster to say what's wrong about him releasing this song in their own words. (NO AI! - )

What AI? I'm the poster who shared the WSJ piece and I stand by it. You know we're allowed to agree with other people and share their opinions... right? You people constantly do, with your imbecilic Bluesky reposts from people no one's ever heard of.

I don't care if Bruce decided to write what is clearly a mediocre (and that's being generous) song in a hurry. But you're crazy if you think no one should be allowed to comment on it unless they're swooning and fawning. The song itself is awful and embarrassing, and I have no issue saying so. You disagree. Who cares?

It's okay. You can go listen to one of Nicki Minaj's collab and pretend that it's good.

Niki who

[Anonymous]

Rage Against the Machine and Bruce in concert

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/bruce-springsteen-minneapolis-ice-concert-tom-morello-1235508440/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Musically, this song is utter crap.

Bits like “guns belted to their coats” sound like LLM slop - the juxtaposition of tokens may seem vaguely reasonable, but in the broader context of a world full of objects and actions, it’s just nonsense. You don’t “belt” a gun to anything, let alone a coat. You can put a gun ON your belt, or a belt on a coat (but not a GUN belt on a coat) or a gun on a sling, and sling over your coat…. You get the idea.

This song is LAZY and BAD and it’s sad to see the Boss, or anyone else, pretending otherwise.

It's true. The lyrics are beyond trite and cringe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind the guy lives on a 400 acre ranch. And at 76 he's probably not doing the dirty work himself.

He's out there making sure he will always have a steady supply of under-the-table labor.

You better come with receipts if you’re going to make a claim like that. He came from nothing, unlike your boys Santa Monica Miller and Silver Spoon Trump.

He’s a zillionaire who wants everybody to think he’s still a working man. He’s a fraud.

Unlike Trump, whose altar you worship at

+1

DP. It's so weird how you people think anyone who disagrees with you must be a Trump voter. I guess those are the only retorts you can come up with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind the guy lives on a 400 acre ranch. And at 76 he's probably not doing the dirty work himself.

He's out there making sure he will always have a steady supply of under-the-table labor.

You better come with receipts if you’re going to make a claim like that. He came from nothing, unlike your boys Santa Monica Miller and Silver Spoon Trump.

He’s a zillionaire who wants everybody to think he’s still a working man. He’s a fraud.

When a Trump supporter demeans someone because they're rich, you've reached peak cognitive dissonance.

And Springsteen didn't grow up wealthy, so he has the cred.

And again - why would you ASSume the PP is a Trump supporter? Because s/he pointed out some facts? Because some of us think the song is terrible? Grow up.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born to Run His Mouth

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/born-to-run-his-mouth-d0da2a4a?st=xrPebu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Paywall. What’s the hot take? That entertainers should simply entertain and shut up?

That should be a gift link.

Requires signup. TLR?

The best thing Bruce Springsteen ever did was admit he was a phoney.
It was a late-career reveal that endeared him to me—a fan grown weary of his aggressive partisanship.

In his 2016 autobiography, Mr. Springsteen confessed that he wasn’t the working class hero he’d always pretended to be. That blue-collar persona was borrowed from his father, who, in Mr. Springsteen’s telling, was a complicated and difficult man.

My sense is that Mr. Springsteen likes complicated and difficult men. His songs are filled with them. Screw-ups who can’t get their lives on track. Men crippled by heartbreak or haunted by demons, for whom daily survival is hard work. He loves those guys.

What he doesn’t love is anyone who disagrees with him politically.

On Wednesday, Mr. Springsteen released a new song, “The Streets of Minneapolis.” As the title suggests, it was recorded in a hurry and aimed at the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. You won’t be the least bit surprised by the undercooked lyrics or the overcooked delivery.

Mr. Springsteen’s disdain for Republicans predates MAGA. He called George W. Bush and Dick Cheney monsters. He accused them of torturing the Constitution and blackening the soul of America—“a generous nation,” as he wrote in a letter endorsing Barack Obama in 2008, “with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems.”

The thing about generosity is that it isn’t really generosity if it doesn’t extend to those with whom you disagree. Same for empathy. Same for nuance.

I think most Americans accept that immigration is a complex problem. We don’t want to break up families and ruin lives. But we do need to have a border, and we do need to have laws. If there were an easy solution we’d have cracked it by now.

Of course, Mr. Springsteen thinks there is an easy solution: Let ’em in and leave ’em alone. That’s a point of view, and he’s welcome to it. He’s also welcome to acknowledge that his wealth and fame insulate him from the consequences of an open border. He never does.

In a different world, the ICE and Border Patrol agents involved in the Minneapolis shootings might make sympathetic subjects for a Springsteen song. They are working-class guys, probably. Military veterans, in some cases. They may have gone to college, though probably not to Yale.

Mr. Springsteen won’t agree, but I’d guess most of them joined ICE or Border Patrol for the right reasons—that is, out of a genuine desire to serve.

They may have been poorly trained. They may have made mistakes under impossible pressure. No way did they wake up expecting to kill someone that day. In fact, I’d bet they’re heartbroken about the deaths of Pretti and Good.

But to believe that you’d have to believe in complexity and nuance.

Mr. Springsteen prefers the comfort of his anger. He’d rather have the moral certainty of blind loyalty to partisan absolutes. Those agents aren’t real people to him. They aren’t veterans and patriots. They aren’t fathers, husbands and sons.

No, they’re “federal thugs.” They’re “King Trump’s private army.”

Strange that a guy so adept at painting colorful portraits of complex and difficult men would be content to work only with black and white. I liked him better when he knew he was a phony.

Yeah, that’s a hot take alright. Should I write an article about how this slop is exactly the sort of disingenuous crap I’d expect in the WSJ and how I preferred it when they stayed in their lane?

Stay angry, Bruce.

They're sharing crappy WSJ OPINION pieces because they can't even come up with something on their own. I'd encourage the prior poster to say what's wrong about him releasing this song in their own words. (NO AI! - )

What AI? I'm the poster who shared the WSJ piece and I stand by it. You know we're allowed to agree with other people and share their opinions... right? You people constantly do, with your imbecilic Bluesky reposts from people no one's ever heard of.

I don't care if Bruce decided to write what is clearly a mediocre (and that's being generous) song in a hurry. But you're crazy if you think no one should be allowed to comment on it unless they're swooning and fawning. The song itself is awful and embarrassing, and I have no issue saying so. You disagree. Who cares?

It's okay. You can go listen to one of Nicki Minaj's collab and pretend that it's good.

Ew, no thanks.