There was an interesting article in yesterdays New York Post about how some charities created by local socialites are criticized for their frivolous causes. Some feel certain charities were launched not just to further the betterment of mankind but also the betterment of themselves.

For example Mayor Bloomberg’s youngest daughter, Georgina has a charity The Rider’s Closet which offers show-riding outfits to needy people. Georgina said “people say I should be changing the world instead of doing this. But I get letters from people all the time saying I’ve changed their lives by providing them riding clothes they couldn’t afford.” So if people are benefiting from a persons philanthropy, do others really have a right to judge?

Another charity that has been questioned is designer Donna Karan’s Urban Zen foundation which trains volunteers to help cancer patients through yoga therapy, meditation and breath work. As a person who practices yoga, I actually like the idea of this charity. I have seen the healing effects of yoga both physically and mentally in my life and in the lives of others. If Urban Zen is helping cancer patients feel good, how is that hurting?

The last charity mentioned in the piece is Central Barkers founded by socialite Karen LeFrak to promote the park as the best place for “playing, napping and making new canine friends in all of New York City.” Okay, I do think this one is a wee ridiculous since last I checked Central Park doesn’t need promotional help, it seems to do pretty well on its own.

What do you think? Do all charities need to take on huge issues or, as long as a charity is legitimaly helping others, can a charity try and change the world on a very specific, more micro level?