...Because they really have no excuse for not doing so. Today Bill Creswell brought to our attention the existence of yet another means of captioning YouTube video: What else but a site called TubeCaption.

With so many options available now (TubeCaption just joined a growing list of options) it is a wonder there aren't more videos captioned on YouTube and in other places. Does captioning have an image problem? (for handicapped, too difficult, not attractive, interferes with enjoyment, etc.) What can we do to make captioning "cool" so that more hearing people will be willing to do it?

Related: Web Video Captioning

About.com's US Military Guide Rod Powers had an explanation to offer about why people with hearing loss can continue to serve in the military while at the same time they can not enlist, in response to the previous blog post "That Soldier May Be Deaf, Charlie.":

"It's that way with most medical conditions. Most medical conditions which are disqualifying to join initially will not necessarily result in a discharge, as long as the member can continue to safely and effectively perform their military duties. That's because the military already has thousands -- sometimes hundreds of thousands -- invested in the military member through training, pay, uniforms, food, etc.

The medical hearing standards for initially joining the military can be read on my site at: hearing. However, over the years, I have seen hundreds of medical waivers granted to applicants with hearing levels substantially below these standards.

The medical hearing standards to continue in the military can be read at: ears. As you can see, the latter standards are somewhat subjective. As long as the military medical officials feel that the member can still do their duty, they can continue in the military.

I like to use this analogy, when people ask why many medical conditions are disqualifying to join, but not necessarily disqualifying for continued service:

Let's say you have the choice of two used cars. One has a known mechanical problem which may worsen over time, and the other has no known mechanical problems. Other than that, they are nearly identical. You would probably choose the one with no known mechanical problems.

However, let's say you bought that car, and then spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours getting it just right for your purposes, and it develops the same mechanical problem that the other car had. Well, after investing all that time and money, you're probably not just going to throw the car away and start over. You're more likely to try and fix the mechanical problem, and -- if it can't be fixed -- you would probably live with it, as long as the car was able to continue to suit your needs.

When the military accepts an applicant with a medical condition, they become responsible for the treatment of that medical condition for life (through the VA), if the condition worsens, even the slightest, during the person's period of military service. Additionally, the VA may have to pay monthly disability payments, if the worsened condition results in an employment disability. This is why, given the choice, the military would rather not grant medical waivers, if they can make their recruiting goals without them.

Hearing loss is a serious problem in the military, and has been for as long as I can remember. Despite mandatory hearing protection, you simply can't spend day-in and day-out, surrounded by gunfire, explosions, aircraft engines, noisy ship equipment, construction equipment, etc., without suffering some degree of high frequency hearing loss. I read an article several years ago which stated that about 65 percent of all military retirees (those with 20 or more years of military service), apply to the VA for 10 or 20 percent disability, due to hearing loss. My own brother-in-law spent 30 years in the Air Force. His job was burying fiber optic cable, so he was around construction equipment, daily. On the day he retired, he began receiving disability compensation of 20 percent from the VA, due to hearing loss."