I think the point you make would have been better expressed without insulting Nitz.

My own views on this are coloured somewhat by my dislike for second-string knockoff characters who are only there to "extend the brand". Iron Man sells? Put Jim Rhodes in armour and he can be an "almost as good as Tony Stark" armoured warrior. People read Superman? Let's have a girl version who's nearly as strong, smart, and heroic.

The problem is, to protect the principal character, who is usually by default the best-selling and most popular charcter, that's who has to be "top hero" when the chips are down. When Luthor's taken over the world it's not Supergirl everyone's looking in the sky for. There comes a time when the "knock off" hero has to step aside when it's time for the big boys to play. Dramatic neccessity.

Worse, because most Marvel and DC icons were created in the 40s to 60s they're almost all white and male and mostly American. Nearly all "major" female heroes and many non-white heroes are versions of already established white male ones. Don't believe me? Ask Supergirl, Batgirl, Huntress, Hawkgirl, Zatanna, She-Hulk, Ms Marvel, the Wasp...

Or to put it another way: count the number of male versions of existing female superheroes there are, or how many white heroes took on the costumes identities originally established by non-white ones. It won't take long.

Then we come to Barbara Gordon. She started out as the worst kind off knock-off; mousy librarian with a Batman crush dressed like her hero to emulate him. Her costume was a feminised version of his, her skill set a cut-down version of his. Even her early rogues gallery was female version of Batman's, like the Joker's daughter. Worse, she lacked Batman's compelling origin motivations. Babs fought crime because her dad was a cop, because she was a bored librarian, and because she thought the dark knight was cute.

Then a bad thing happened to her. As I recall The Killing Joke doesn't go into what Joker does to her, except it involved shooting her in the belly, stripping her off, and taking some photographs. It was a nasty scene - I can see why it provoked a feminist backlash although it's tame by today's standards - all the more so because it involved the darkest side of Batman's world finally catching up with one of the tweeist parts.

But from that writers constructed a new status quo for Barbara. Oracle does things that Batman doesn't in ways he doesn't. She occupies a unique corner of the DC universe as characters like Nick Fury or Dr Strange do at Marvel, turning up to offer an assist to further the plot, bringing a very specialist input that they do better than anybody else. Barbara got out from under the shadow of the bat and became something unique driven by a dark origin to trancend her tragedy.

Her disability was a key part of that. There are dozens, probably hundreds of heroes running around kicking bad guys. There are very few who live with a handicap and manage to be heroes in spite of it. Surely we can spare one character to be a great and present reminder that disability doesn't have to define one?

Yet many writers seem to have a problem with this. How many times have Xavier's legs been cured now? I can see the "wish fulfillment" of seeing Barbara cured - she's a character we like and it would make her happy - but after that story, what then? Why not fix Banner's Hulk control problem, and Cyclops' eye beam curse, and Daredevil's sight? Why not resurrect Thomas and Martha Wayne so Bruce feels happier? Sometimes it is the tragedy of a character's situation that makes them compelling; remove the problem and you remove the unique appeal.

In summary, I think this is a retrogressive step. Unique Oracle becomes generic second-tier Batgirl. I hope that the creators can and do tell great stories with her; I fear that all they'll manage after a short-term win is to condemn Barbara to obscurity again - or another tragic accident.