>Real programmers, (like me),
There's OO and OO.
The original Design Patterns book was the first book I read where the intent, and advantages of, proper object design came through. It requires a fair bit of attention to get it, but it sure doesn't talk down to you and it sounds very little like your critique.
Most OO books do not so much sin the way you claim, they sin by immediately focusing on inheritance, because... well, it is easy to explain. Never mind that inheritance is only one facet, and often the least useful, of OO. There's also often a tradeoff: some things like dynamically composing objects together at runtime are extremely powerful and hard to do procedurally, but also make debugging exponentially harder.
And most intro to Java books also sin by assuming that, since you don't know the One True Language (TM), then you don't know objects either so they must launch in an OO intro.
On the other hand, as an example of less than useful gratuitous object orientation, read this little nugget.
Start out with a simple hack (on top) and go down to the author's brilliant suggestion at end. All other things remaining equal, which bit of code would you be rather looking at 2 AM with an angry customer on the line?
Notice the .edu in the above url, maybe that's where all those pants uni programmers come from ;-)