See, the pig’s complaint is that he wishes he was taller! <hahahahahaha>
Me too, and me neither. I think it has a very tiny head.
I know nothing about the process of cartooning, but I would imagine they’re originally drawn much larger than they appear in the magazine. I can see giving the chicken a little tiny head which, when shrunk, looks like a slightly sloping neck.
Look at how the humans’ noses are drawn. They slope downward and outward, then come sharply back on a horizontal line toward the face. That’s exactly what that little nub on the chicken’s head does; I presume this is just the artist’s style, and he drew the chicken’s beak in the same manner as the humans’ noses.
Also, look at the catalog description: “Couple on a bridge with their pet chicken.” Doesn’t say “with a dead chicken,” or “with a headless chicken”; just “with their pet chicken.” If it were headless, that would presumably be an important part of the description; the lack of mention of anything odd about the chicken suggests to me that there isn’t anything odd about it. I’m well aware that absence of proof != proof of absence, but I do think having the chicken dead rather than alive would affect the cartoon’s meaning significantly enough to warrant mention.
Finally, take a look at this cartoon, by the same artist. It shows a bunch of birds talking; clearly they all have heads, but they look pretty similar to the chicken in the OP’s cartoon; certainly their heads are disproportionately small for their bodies, making it difficult to tell where the neck ends and the head begins.
I have no idea why I care about this so much.
I vote no head on that chicken (though when I look hard, I can see a small nubbin on the left side that COULD be taken as a very tiny beak.
And though I probably wouldn’t have come up with the explanation myself, I second MadPansy64’s explanation about the metaphor of busy busy busy being “chicken running around with its head cut off.” If only this cartoon’s chicken was running. Or spurting blood. Yeah, that’d be awesome.
It’s a volschtein.
Because you need to
E-mail?
The pig says, “My wife is a slut.” 
It’s a Ziggy!
Now that’s a complaint.
Ah, that link makes a big difference. I think the chicken has a head, and the joke is that aforementioned absurdist take on “chicken/children.”
I think the cartoon is funnier because it looks like Mike the Headless Chicken. Which then raises the questions: Mike was difficult to take care of without his head, so are they complaining about the amount of care involved interfering with their vacation time? Why would they take a headless chicken on a cruise – he can’t see anything anyway.
Other questions raised: Chickens go on cruises? Why do they have a pet chicken instead of a more popular pet bird, or a mammal instead? Is this a play on the “chicken cross the road” joke as in “why did the chicken cross the ocean?”
There are many questions this cartoon raises. But I think the biggest question raised is: Is there anyone anywhere who both understood the point of the cartoonist, and if they did, did they laugh?
These aren’t the chickens we want.
We don’t want to detain you.
Move along.
I worked with a guy who was planning a vacation. His wife didn’t want to leave the dog behind, so they were going to park their travel trailer on a flat barge with a herd of others for a “cruise” on the Mississippi River. The barge, in a tow of other barges hauling grain, cement, ore, and such, had a grassy park in the middle for doggy walks.
That seemed rather absurd to me.
That chicken has no head. As such, he represents our inner fears (chicken=coward) which are irrational (headless) and drive us to commit dangerous, self-destructive and senseless acts (like a chicken crossing the road, running around like a chicken with its head cut off). The husband recognizes that releasing these fears would free up a lot of their energy and make their lives more pleasant, (vacation), while the wife is content to live in denial.
Nah, I don’t think so either. The artist just can’t draw chickens worth shit.