This story has moved fast.  Two days ago a rather strange op-ed popped up in the English edition of the Chinese newspaper, The Global Times: "Charlie Sheen is not filial."  It turns out to be a satire (the big give away is the author's pseudonym, which invokes the memory of socialist ascetic Lei Feng), as noted by several different blogs (and at least one seems to have been taken in for a moment).  The opening line of the op-ed:

Actor Charlie Sheen is a classic example of the difference in Western and Eastern values and norms.

It goes on to make some funny, and rather subtle (that's how it got past the censors) jibes at Chinese improprieties.  The basic idea is: when Chinese engage in scandalous behavior at least they do it out of public sight and maintain a more effective, if hypocritical, front.

That this appeared at all in a Chinese news outlet is surprising.  Perhaps we can take it as a good sign: editors at The Global Times are willing not only to poke fun at Sheen (fish in a barrel anyone?) but also to allow for an amusing reflection on Chinese misbehavior.

From the perspective of the revival of Confucianism in China, however, it might not be such a good thing.  Notice how the key Confucian value of filial piety is being invoked here.  It is laughable.  It is a standard that is absent in the US but contorted into meaninglessness in China.  Here's a reference to Chinese business practices:

His [Sheen's] employers are unhappy that he was distracted with prostitutes and drugs, and didn't show up to work on time. Why not take a tip from the Chinese business community, and make visits to a KTV parlor part of Sheen's workday?

And instead of epic parties at his home with porn stars, why not keep Sheen occupied with business banquets?

"Visits to a KTV parlor" is a reference to prostitution, and business banquets are symbols of gluttonous and corrupt excess. That, the article suggests, is the regular, rather un-Confucian, experience for a good number of Chinese men.  But, hey, in between the hookers and the banquets we should respet our parents!  

Who knows who the author of the piece really is.  Some suggest it is a foreigner making fun of China.  Perhaps it is a Chinese person.  Whoever it is, he or she is laughing not only at Charlie Sheen but also at the idea that Confucian values can somehow have real relevance in contemporary China.  To the exten that that is true, it appears that Confucianism has revived only to supply a new store of jokes and comedy – not quite what The Master had in mind….